Openbravo Issue Tracking System - Openbravo ERP
View Issue Details
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0007721Openbravo ERP09. Financial managementpublic2009-02-20 15:022009-03-18 11:03
Reporterplujan 
Assigned Toshuehner 
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityhave not tried
StatusclosedResolutionno change required 
PlatformOS30OS Version
Product Versionpi 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Merge Request Status
Review Assigned To
OBNetwork customer
Web browser
ModulesCore
Support ticket
Regression level
Regression date
Regression introduced in release
Regression introduced by commit
Triggers an Emergency PackNo
Summary0007721: On PostgreSQL, there is an incorrect error message when creating periods for non numerical Fiscal Years
DescriptionI create periods using the Create Periods button, but if my fiscal year is not a valid year, I get an error message:
      
Error:
idNumber@

Please note the on Oracle this error seems to be working fine.
Steps To Reproduce1.Go Financial Management > Accounting > Setup > Fiscal Calendar
2.Create a new Calendar or use an existing one
3.Move to Year and create a new Year. In Fiscal Year field put 2Q08-3Q09
4.Save and click on Create Periods button. The incorrect error message is displayed.
5.Edit Fiscal Year field. Now, put 2008. Save and create periods. Now it works.
Proposed Solution
Additional Information
TagsNo tags attached.
Relationships
related to backport 0007577 closed shuehner Improve messaging where there is no conversion rate 
Attached Files
Issue History
Date ModifiedUsernameFieldChange
2009-02-20 15:02plujanNew Issue
2009-02-20 15:02plujanAssigned To => vmromanos
2009-02-20 15:02plujanRegression testing => No
2009-02-20 18:48shuehnerAssigned Tovmromanos => shuehner
2009-02-22 14:23shuehnerRelationship addedrelated to 0007577
2009-02-22 14:27shuehnerStatusnew => closed
2009-02-22 14:27shuehnerNote Added: 0013885
2009-02-22 14:27shuehnerResolutionopen => no change required
2009-03-18 11:03anonymoussf_bug_id0 => 2691421

Notes
(0013885)
shuehner   
2009-02-22 14:27   
This is a regression of a change in issue 5625 (backport 7577). It has been fixed by re-opening and resolving in 5625 (revision 13494). So for this issue -> no change required.