Add supplier checkbox

[ced (Cédric Krier)]

@pokoli

I mean that if we require the user to check a supplier checkbox to include supplier details on the party it will be confusing to show all they parties on purchases.

I do not think it will be confusing because users are not confused when they enter data their data. If they purchase to a specific party, they will not be confused by finding it (even if the checkbox is not checked (they will probably not know)).

@pokoli

At least I will expect that the parties shown as supplier as shown first than the parties not checked as supplier.

Why not.

@pokoli

We have a wizard to merge parties, so I’m wondering if this can not be easy solved by using the wizard to merge the parties at some point of the workflow.

First it is better to prevent mistakes than fixing them.
Second how do you find duplicates? How are you sure their are duplicates? And even if you find them, there will always be a hard work to understand why there is a duplicate, if it is not a mistake to merge them etc.

@pokoli

For me the issue here is that the are some companies that need to validate their suppliers

That is very common because there are risks when purchasing to a new supplier.

@pokoli

the same applies for other companies for customers as it has been explained by albert.

I do not find clear use case. There are sometimes validation to accept a customer as B2B (check VAT etc.) but it is not required to sale as B2B.
Any way, it is clear that we must not put a checkbox for customer. This will degrade the sale workflow for most companies. When the few companies with special customer treatment will have anyway to customize the workflow.

@pokoli

So I’m not sure if the checkbox/warning is enought.

We do not care if it is enough or not. For me, it is a good minimum for almost all companies.

[yangoon (Mathias Behrle)]

Please forgive that I couldn’t read thoroughly the whole thread, it is the time of the annual leaves in many countries, so for me, too, with restricted internet connection.

I missed some points in the discussion so far:

How will the feature integrate with the current generic menuitems

• Parties associated to Purchases

• Parties associated to Sales

Will the checkbox be automatically set when a party has purchases? Will those views be replaced by views Parties marked as suppliers, Parties marked as customers?

When merging parties with the merge wizard and one party has set the checkbox and the other has not, which value will be used?

How will the feature behave on upgrades? Will the checkbox be automatically set for Parties with purchases?

All things considered until now I have the impression that with this proposal we are on the way to lose the generic design of parties instead of solving misunderstandings by better and detailed label and help texts.

[ced (Cédric Krier)]

@yangoon

How will the feature integrate with the current generic menuitems

• Parties associated to Purchases
• Parties associated to Sales

I think nothing will change for those menu.

@yangoon

When merging parties with the merge wizard and one party has set the checkbox and the other has not, which value will be used?

The merge wizard does not update any of the party field. So it will be kept like that.

@yangoon

How will the feature behave on upgrades? Will the checkbox be automatically set for Parties with purchases?

I guess we could set to true for all the parties already used as supplier.

@yangoon

All things considered until now I have the impression that with this proposal we are on the way to lose the generic design of parties instead of solving misunderstandings by better and detailed label and help texts.

The generic design will not be lost as we do not change the model at all.
We just add UI-sugar to display only relevant information.

[yangoon (Mathias Behrle)]

@yangoon

How will the feature integrate with the current generic menuitems

• Parties associated to Purchases
• Parties associated to Sales

I think nothing will change for those menu.

So this sounds a next source for misunderstandings, because parties marked as suppliers, but without purchases will not appear there, but users will expect to find them there.

@yangoon

When merging parties with the merge wizard and one party has set the checkbox and the other has not, which value will be used?

The merge wizard does not update any of the party field. So it will be kept like that.

So one setting will be lost. Which can lead to further unexepected behavior.

@yangoon

All things considered until now I have the impression that with this proposal we are on the way to lose the generic design of parties instead of solving misunderstandings by better and detailed label and help texts.

The generic design will not be lost as we do not change the model at all.
We just add UI-sugar to display only relevant information.
[/quote]

AFAIU the base model is changed, there will be an additional field with functional consequences. If indeed all what this Boolean does is to switch the visibility of a Supplier or (‘Acting as Supplier’) tab, then ok, please just name it that way and do not couple any further logic to it. This should then of course be done symmetrical for a Customers tab (not all use cases of Tryton are connected to sell something and it is wrong to assume that all parties not being suppliers are customers (e.g. banks, patients, club members…)).

I think we should take special care to not mask the generic party model, but that the labels of problematic UI items should be improved.

[ced (Cédric Krier)]

@yangoon

So this sounds as the next reason for misunderstandings, because parties marked as suppliers, but without purchases will not appear there, but users will expect to find them there.

Why would a user expect that. The name is pretty clear (it is not “Suppliers”).

@yangoon

So one setting will be lost. Which can lead to further unexepected behavior.

As for any merging action. This is nothing new.

@yangoon

AFAIU the base model is changed, there will be an additional field with functional consequences. If indeed all what this Boolean does is to switch the visibility of a Supplier or (‘Acting as Supplier’) tab, then ok, please just name it that way and do not couple any further logic to it. This should then of course be done symmetrical for a Customers tab (not all use cases of Tryton are connected to sell something and it is wrong to assume that all parties not being suppliers are customers (e.g. banks, patients, club members…)).

Please read the all thread this has already been discussed.

@yangoon

but that the labels of problematic UI items should be improved

I see not proposal from you about what should be changed in the labels.
And from my experience, the problem is not about understanding the fields but about the astonishment to have to fill fields linked to supplier on party that will never be a supplier for the company.

[yangoon (Mathias Behrle)]

@ced

@yangoon

AFAIU the base model is changed, there will be an additional field with functional consequences. If indeed all what this Boolean does is to switch the visibility of a Supplier or (‘Acting as Supplier’) tab, then ok, please just name it that way and do not couple any further logic to it. This should then of course be done symmetrical for a Customers tab (not all use cases of Tryton are connected to sell something and it is wrong to assume that all parties not being suppliers are customers (e.g. banks, patients, club members…)).

Please read the all thread this has already been discussed.

Not discussed exhaustively and reading

Any way, it is clear that we must not put a checkbox for customer. This will degrade the sale workflow for most companies. When the few companies with special customer treatment will have anyway to customize the workflow.

goes to the opposite and wrong direction.

@yangoon

but that the labels of problematic UI items should be improved
I see not proposal from you about what should be changed in the labels.

First the problematic items should be identified. The thread turned out that this seems to be the basic problem, not the initial topic. So perhaps better to close this one and open a new one?

I already put a proposal in the direction to use ‘acting as …’ instead of just ‘Supplier’, ‘Customer’, which are a source of constant misunderstandings.

And from my experience, the problem is not about understanding the fields but about the astonishment to have to fill fields linked to supplier on party that will never be a supplier for the company.

Exactly the same applies for customers.

[pokoli (Sergi Almacellas Abellana)]

@yangoon

Any way, it is clear that we must not put a checkbox for customer. This will degrade the sale workflow for most companies. When the few companies with special customer treatment will have anyway to customize the workflow.

goes to the opposite and wrong direction.

Why? Could you elaborate your afirmations so other people can see the reational behind them?