Tryton - Issues

 

Issue4109

Title account_fr: Switch some 43* accounts to payable
Priority feature Status chatting
Superseder Nosy List ced, rhertzog, yangoon
Type behavior Components account_be, account_de_skr03, account_fr
Assigned To Keywords review, review
Reviews 6471002
View: 6471002

Created on 2014-08-05.11:55:53 by rhertzog, last changed by rhertzog.

Messages
msg19506 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2015-01-08.22:59:58
The next step will be to have similar patch for other chart of account as in msg18035
msg19503 (view) Author: [hidden] (rhertzog) (Tryton committer) Date: 2015-01-08.22:40:43
So what's the next step to get this going forward?

You said:
> It will be more complicate because more accounts will be selectable.

But the number of payable accounts remain reasonable even after this change. We go from 13 payable accounts to 17 payable accounts. It's not worse than the list of taxes for example... and in this case, the names are well differentiated so the risk of mistake is lower.
msg18035 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-09-12.08:44:32
If we do it for account_fr, we should also do it for account_be with the account 45*.
And I guess there is the same for account_de_skr03.
msg18027 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-09-11.11:38:57
On 11 Sep 11:23, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> So it's better to not push users to work this way and make it complicated for people who (like me) find it natural to use parties to represent all entities that we are interacting with?

It will be more complicate because more accounts will be selectable.

> I don't think the balance is on the good side here. But it's up to you. Associating to entities make it much more easy to enter the payments and relate them to the corresponding debt.

Here, you make a point.
msg18026 (view) Author: [hidden] (rhertzog) (Tryton committer) Date: 2014-09-11.11:23:16
So it's better to not push users to work this way and make it complicated for people who (like me) find it natural to use parties to represent all entities that we are interacting with?

I don't think the balance is on the good side here. But it's up to you. Associating to entities make it much more easy to enter the payments and relate them to the corresponding debt.
msg18007 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-09-10.15:04:53
No, it doesn't but it pushes the user to work this way.
msg17971 (view) Author: [hidden] (rhertzog) (Tryton committer) Date: 2014-09-09.14:56:35
Cédric, I don't think that switching the type to "payable" forces anyone to create parties and to use those when entering payments... it merely makes it possible, no?

Mathias, I'm not sure that I understand you. Those entities can probably use the current account chart since it's standardized. The questions is whether I'm allowed to create (in my own accounting) "parties" for those entities and whether I can associate them to the proper accounts in the "Account payable" field of those parties. The accounting rules requires us to store social debts in the 43* accounts.
msg17970 (view) Author: [hidden] (yangoon) Date: 2014-09-09.13:59:23
Question: Do I read correctly, that organizations like RAM" for "Sécurité sociale", "URSSAF" for "Allocations familiales" and "CIPAV" for "Retraite" themselves couldn't use the account chart in its current state?
msg17969 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-09-09.12:09:21
I don't want to force everyone to work like you do. It is quite uncommon to create all those parties for the states.
msg17968 (view) Author: [hidden] (rhertzog) (Tryton committer) Date: 2014-09-09.12:03:19
So is there any chance that you can change your mind? Or what's the next step here?
msg17797 (view) Author: [hidden] (rhertzog) (Tryton committer) Date: 2014-08-19.16:47:58
I would like to note that even though it's the state, I do have created parties for some of the organizations that handle various part of our social system... and I want to be able to associate those payable accounts to those parties.

FWIW I have a party "RAM" for "Sécurité sociale", "URSSAF" for "Allocations familiales" and "CIPAV" for "Retraite". They don't send invoices but their payment notices are treated likewise, noted as an expense one one side (64*) and as a debt on the other side (43*).
msg17785 (view) Author: [hidden] (ced) (Tryton committer) (Tryton translator) Date: 2014-08-19.11:33:33
I don't think it is right because it is payable to the state and not to a regular party. So for me, the kind other is good enough.
msg17753 (view) Author: [hidden] (rhertzog) (Tryton committer) Date: 2014-08-05.11:55:52
We need to be able to pay (social) expenses via those accounts.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-01-16 11:59:45rhertzogsetassignedto: rhertzog ->
2015-03-06 12:09:15cedsetkeyword: review, review
2015-01-08 22:59:59cedsetmessages: + msg19506
2015-01-08 22:40:44rhertzogsetmessages: + msg19503
2014-09-20 10:36:15cedsetpriority: bug -> feature
component: + account_be, account_de_skr03
keyword: review, review
2014-09-12 08:44:33cedsetmessages: + msg18035
keyword: review, review
2014-09-11 11:38:58cedsetmessages: + msg18027
2014-09-11 11:23:17rhertzogsetmessages: + msg18026
2014-09-10 15:04:53cedsetmessages: + msg18007
keyword: review, review
2014-09-09 14:56:36rhertzogsetmessages: + msg17971

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