I would say this is not the desired behaviour but not sure:
Paying an invoice using the Pay Invoice wizard from the invoice adds the
corresponding account.move.line to the payment_lines field. But creating a
manual payment move and manually reconciling does not add the corresponding line
to payment_lines.
To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information
Child items
0
Show closed items
No child items are currently assigned. Use child items to break down this issue into smaller parts.
Linked items
0
Link issues together to show that they're related.
Learn more.
At least, it is not a bug.
The sense of payment_lines on the invoice is for lines that can not be used for
reconciliation but could be used later. So it is just a mechanism to make
automatic reconciliation if the amount of payment lines finally reach the amount
of the invoice.
I don't understand the sense of payment_lines on the invoice Cedric has
explained. To avoid confusing the final user is better that the payment lines on
third tab of invoices list all the payments related to this invoice, created by
the Pay Invoice wizard or created by a manual move + reconciliation.
I think the best design will be to have a second function field that will be
visible and will replace the current one2many once the invoice is paid with the
reconciled lines.
Indeed showing as payment lines the line used for reconciliation is wrong
because it could confuse the user.
For example, if a single payment paid 2 invoices, I will have a line in the
"payment lines" for an amount greater than the invoice. This will confuse the user.
Instead I write a patch to hide the payment lines once the invoice is paid.
Please test patch at review900003
IMHO hiding the payment information when the invoice is paid is not the best
solution. For the users is very useful to see the payments of each invoice, also
when they are paid. It is better the user could see the
"payment lines", despite some of them have an amount greater than the invoice.
If you don't like to have "payment lines" with an amount greater than the
invoice, a workaround could be the creation of a short-cut from invoice to the
move.line(s) reconciled with the invoice move.line(s), but I don't know if it
will be difficult to define this short-cut.
I'm strongly against showing "payment lines" because it will have no sense in
many cases (amount greater, "paid" with a credit note/negative invoice, etc.).
I'm against shortcut because I don't know what should be shown because
reconciliation could be very complex.
If user wants to know what happens he has to look at the move and the
reconciliations linked.
I think Jordi means to show the 'reconciliation lines' despite some could have an
amount bigger then the invoice. I agree with him. I do not think it is confusing
to a user if he sees multiple lines, one for the payment and the other lines for
each invoice that was reconciled by this payment.