Tryton - Issues

 

Issue3805

Title Remove accounting from Products
Priority feature Status testing
Superseder Nosy List Timitos, ced, ohuisman, pokoli, reviewbot, semarie, udono
Type feature request Components account_product
Assigned To ced Keywords review
Reviews 45111002
View: 45111002

Created on 2014-03-29.00:28:30 by udono, last changed by reviewbot.

Messages
review45111002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/45111002/#ps20001
msg40706 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2018-05-16.21:51:43
I decided to not make any migration because the only possible migration would be to create a category for each product and this is not a good way. Instead I will put on the migration topic that prior to upgrade, the user must setup an accounting category for all products that were using accounts on product.
review45111002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/45111002/#ps1
msg40704 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2018-05-16.21:14:24
Here is review45111002
msg35603 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2017-09-08.19:57:27
Indeed I'm wondering if we should not remove the accounting fields from the product completely and use only accounting category.
The idea is that accounting properties should be set by accountant but other properties of a product are set by the product manager. So moving the accounting to only the category will allow to have an access to accounting category only.
The main difficulty is the migration of installations that are using definition on product. A possibility could be to create an accounting category for each product that has accounting properties.
msg16499 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-04-14.14:44:29
On 14 Apr 14:28, Udo Spallek wrote:
> Just trying to understand, do you think the actual implementation
> has a clean user experience and there is no issue in msg16492?

It is the best we can do.
msg16498 (view) Author: [hidden] (udono) Date: 2014-04-14.14:28:55
Just trying to understand, do you think the actual implementation
has a clean user experience and there is no issue in msg16492?
msg16497 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-04-14.14:20:06
On 14 Apr 14:13, Udo Spallek wrote:
> Proposal
> --------
> Add product configuration to set the defaults for:
> 
>    * for each product and product category:
> 
>      * accounts,
>      * taxes,
> 
>    * product:
> 
>      * Use Category's Account,
>      * Use Category's Taxes.
>   
>    * product category:
> 
>      * Use Parent's Accounts
>      * Use Parent's Taxes

Not possible because it doesn't work for roots.

> Make the account fields on product category required as long as
> "Use Parent's Accounts" is False.
> 
> What do you think?

Too much constraintful.
msg16496 (view) Author: [hidden] (udono) Date: 2014-04-14.14:19:20
Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:38:44 +0200
Cédric Krier <issue_tracker@tryton.org>:
>Having such cross record integrity check is almost not possible to
>acheive nor to have a clean user experience.
>That's why such check is
>done when the property is used.
Yes, I am not sure about these in deep checks, either.
But for now the user experience is IMHO not clean, too.
The property as fall-back is a hidden feature, which can not be
controlled by non-admin users.

Proposal
--------
Add product configuration to set the defaults for:

   * for each product and product category:

     * accounts,
     * taxes,

   * product:

     * Use Category's Account,
     * Use Category's Taxes.

   * product category:

     * Use Parent's Accounts
     * Use Parent's Taxes

Make the account fields on product category required as long as
"Use Parent's Accounts" is False.

What do you think?
msg16495 (view) Author: [hidden] (udono) Date: 2014-04-14.14:13:20
Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:38:44 +0200
Cédric Krier <issue_tracker@tryton.org>:
>Having such cross record integrity check is almost not possible to
>acheive nor to have a clean user experience.
>That's why such check is
>done when the property is used.
Yes, I am not sure about these in deep checks, either.
But for now the user experience is IMHO not clean, too.
The property as fall-back is a hidden feature, which can not be
controlled by non-admin users.

Proposal
--------
Add product configuration to set the defaults for:

   * for each product and product category:

     * accounts,
     * taxes,

   * product:

     * Use Category's Account,
     * Use Category's Taxes.
  
   * product category:

     * Use Parent's Accounts
     * Use Parent's Taxes

Make the account fields on product category required as long as
"Use Parent's Accounts" is False.

What do you think?
msg16493 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-04-14.12:38:44
Having such cross record integrity check is almost not possible to acheive nor to have a clean user experience.
That's why such check is done when the property is used.
msg16492 (view) Author: [hidden] (udono) Date: 2014-04-14.12:26:34
Scenario
--------
* Create a product category, save.
* Create a product

  * Check on product: Use Category's Account
  * Save Product

Expectation
-----------
I would expect one of the two behaviors:

1. Raise User Error: No accounts defined on product, product category or
   parent product category.
2. The product category has required fields for the accounts, if there is
   no parent category.

Issue
-----
The Product is saved, but should not, since accounts should be required
on products.

N.B. I think this issue is not release critical, since this behavior is
constant from version 1.0.
msg16343 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-03-29.01:39:48
1 - don't understand.
2 - no.
msg16341 (view) Author: [hidden] (udono) Date: 2014-03-29.00:28:29
Accounts on products are required. When check Use Category's Account, then the
accounts on category are no longer required.

1. Is it to hold the possibility for default accounts, or
   Why is it needed to choose a category when we do not want
   to set accounts directly?
2. Are the requirements missing on category accounts?

Thanks for clarification.
History
Date User Action Args
2018-05-17 10:47:45reviewbotsetmessages: + msg40713
2018-05-17 07:27:23Timitossetnosy: + Timitos
2018-05-16 21:51:43cedsetmessages: + msg40706
2018-05-16 21:15:21reviewbotsetnosy: + reviewbot
messages: + msg40705
2018-05-16 21:14:24cedsetstatus: in-progress -> testing
reviews: 45111002
messages: + msg40704
keyword: + review
2018-05-15 13:38:31cedsetstatus: chatting -> in-progress
assignedto: ced
2018-04-28 11:44:33cedlinkissue4990 superseder
2018-03-31 21:04:44cedsetpriority: wish -> feature
type: behavior -> feature request
title: Remove accounting on Products -> Remove accounting from Products
2017-11-13 19:50:00semariesetnosy: + semarie
2017-09-29 16:08:52pokolisetnosy: + pokoli

Showing 10 items. Show all history (warning: this could be VERY long)