I don’t get it, there is in V5 now write-off methods used when reconciling.
I was perplexed to see that there is need to create a special write-off journal of type Write-Off!
What’s so special about this journal where for ages general journals have been used (e.g. OD in France).
Can’t this be simplified?
I think it is good to have the options to limit which journals are allowed to be used for write-off.
But similar to Issue 4990: Merge account type and account kind - Tryton issue tracker the journal type could be improved to use a list of Boolean fields to allow more flexibility.
Having the option to limit the journal is one thing, but forcing this as such is an unnecessary pain.
Please relax the constraint and let the company accountant decide what journals to manage and how.
So, why not simply add a boolean write-off to the journal class allowing this selection.
This permits either existing journals or new ones to be used in the rules (which may be journal specific).
Still grumbling about this (and thus far have refused to create any write-off journal)…
There is also fundamentally a problem believing that reconciliation differences will always be written off as either a profit or loss as the difference could be left in the same or some other non p/l account.
What is the added-value of a new journal type anyway?
What is it that could not be done simply with a general journal?
I’d like to see write-off journal disappear and simply a general journal used, if that’s possible.
Accounts where removed from journals because they are shared by all the companies in the database.
TBH, I’d rather see a “Company” field added to Journal (as we did in https://bitbucket.org/trytonspain/trytond-account_journal_company/src/default/) and make it a per-company record with its credit/debit accounts. I’d make configuration easier (as it used to be), although I don’t see that change happening any time soon.
Another reason that it is pointless to have a ‘write-off’ journal-type.
Fine with adding a ‘Company’ field (hopefully where not set means global;-).
And while we’re at it, the name of ‘Write-off methods’ need to be fixed as the term is not correctly employed in the context provided, which is more like ‘reconciliation difference’ methods.
Write-off methods are a different animal, though I imagine one could do it with reconciliation, but that’s abusing the mechanism… normally it is a specific move operation of which the pertinent line will be reconciled in part with the move line in question.
seems the following should at least give some flexibility…