I have a question about using individuals party accounts.
why is it mandatory to set party_required if you want to be able to select the account for a party.
I understand that it helps to select a subset of accounts when creating a party. but if you have one account for one party when you create a move you must select the account of the party AND the party (redundant).
What is the aim in fine of that constaint ?
in fact if you have 2 parties with the same name you have to choose one on the party field of the move.
i do not know what will happen in the sum if you choose the bad one.
Because i understand the problem but with that possibility if you have some parties with individual accounts and some not it is possible in the UI to choose a party not attached to the account you are dealing with.
and when you have 25 000 moves good luck to find what and where happened.
sometimes design choice are hard to decide and each of them have caveats.
Indeed it would be a good improvement to be able to restrict an account with party required to only one (or a list) of parties. And of course permit to configure such account only to the same parties.
The debt will be booked to the party of the line.
The account setup on parties are just default values.
just first thought about it i need to think deeper about that and i am too newbee with dev tryton to try something now
we could have something like another /0\ checkbox like only_party (party_alone…something like that) that would says there is only one party for that account and it would not be available to choose if it already in use (with something like blabla… account .. left join party) if in use party won’t be null otherwise yes.
in that case no need to re-left join party - we could probabily /o\ (i must dive in the code and i have no time for the moment) change sql to have a case statement in the sum or some magic like that.
One day i’ll take time to understand how things are achieved to see what could be done with minimal costs and minimal changes