Anonymous | Login
Project:
RSS
  
News | My View | View Issues | Roadmap | Summary

View Issue Details[ Jump to Notes ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
ID
0009339
TypeCategorySeverityReproducibilityDate SubmittedLast Update
defect[Openbravo ERP] 09. Financial managementmajorhave not tried2009-06-05 00:472009-06-23 00:00
ReporterDavidVView Statuspublic 
Assigned Toeduardo_Argal 
PrioritynormalResolutionduplicateFixed in Version
StatusclosedFix in branchFixed in SCM revision
ProjectionnoneETAnoneTarget Version
OSLinux 64 bitDatabasePostgreSQLJava version
OS VersionDatabase versionAnt version
Product Version2.50MP1SCM revision 
Review Assigned To
Web browser
ModulesCore
Regression level
Regression date
Regression introduced in release
Regression introduced by commit
Triggers an Emergency PackNo
Summary

0009339: Can not select organizations in account combination

DescriptionWhen defining a new account combination (or when changing an existing one) I can not select my summary level organization nor the * organization.
Steps To Reproduce1. Define an organization hierarchy like:
  A (legal entity with accounting; marked as "summary")
    B (generic)
    C (user defined)
2. go to Financial Management || Accounting || Setup || Account Combination
3. create a new record
4. you won't see the organization A in the list nor the * organization
Proposed SolutionMay relate to the issue 0009276
TagsNo tags attached.
Attached Files

- Relationships [ Relation Graph ] [ Dependency Graph ]
duplicate of defect 0009276 closedharikrishnan Organization list does not include summary organizations in the Account Combination window and selector 
related to feature request 0004266pi acknowledgedrmorley Eliminating account combination concept 

-  Notes
(0016970)
DavidV (reporter)
2009-06-05 03:30

 The key issue is in the definition of organizations (see my notes to 0009276).
The workaround for "summary level" organizations described there as well.

Still open the question for * organization:
Why we can't define account combinations for * organization ???
(0016972)
pjuvara (reporter)
2009-06-05 06:55

 DavidV,

thanks for reporting this issue. As you state, this is definitely a duplicate of 9276; please monitor the progress on that issue.

We would not consider the issue critical as there 2 workarounds identified (thanks for reporting the second workaround).

Paolo
(0017024)
DavidV (reporter)
2009-06-05 15:10
edited on: 2009-06-05 15:17

 pjuvara,

I left my issue open since it has an aspect which 9276 does not have:

my finding published in 9276 solves display of "summary level" organization
but I can not create account combination for * organization (and * is not summary level organisation)

My iss would not be resolved by the 9276 resolution.
(0017025)
rafaroda (developer)
2009-06-05 15:24

 Eduardo, can you please comment on this issue? Thanks.
(0017030)
pjuvara (reporter)
2009-06-05 15:50
edited on: 2009-06-05 15:59

 Eduardo, you are the ultimate expert on this matter and you should probably decide whether this is a defect or not.
My take is that it is not.

The semantics of the * organization is that you should be able to define reference data in * but not transactions (see http://wiki.openbravo.com/wiki/Functional_Documentation/General_Setup#Security.2FMulti-organization [^]).

According to this semantics, you certainly should be able to define an account combination within the context of the * organization (except that combinations are defined within the context of an accounting schema and not the context of an organization) but I am not sure whether you should be able to use * as one of its dimensions.

The idea of the accounting combination dimensions is that, when you create an accounting entry using this combination, if the originating document does not have a value for that dimension, the value coming from the code combination is used instead and stored in the Fact_acct table.

Using * as an organization dimension in the Fact_acct table would not be correct as the content of Fact_acct is transactional and that would contradict the semantics of *.

In any case, this is a moot point because, as it happens, organization is a mandatory attribute on all table so the organization dimension is always taken from the originating document and not the accounting combination.
Therefore, the organization value that you choose here is not relevant (see workaround 1 for issue 9276).

For both of these reasons I think this is not a defect.
(0017031)
pjuvara (reporter)
2009-06-05 15:52

 You might also want to monitor feature request 4266 (which you are already monitoring).
(0017049)
DavidV (reporter)
2009-06-05 18:17

 I have seen account combinations of * organization generaed during the initial client setup (with accounting option).

I do not see them in the preinstalled "Accounting Test" client ... so I started missing them :]
(0017067)
psarobe (manager)
2009-06-08 08:56

 Please Eduardo, answer this issue

thanks
(0017068)
psarobe (manager)
2009-06-08 08:56

 Reminder sent to: eduardo_Argal
(0017116)
pjuvara (reporter)
2009-06-08 19:32

 Changing to status new, since status feedback is appropriate when we are waiting for feedback from the reporter.
In this case, additional comments are expected from the assignee and nothing is stopping us from progressing this issue.
(0017201)
eduardo_Argal (developer)
2009-06-11 00:58

 Yes, This is a bug. Summary organizations should be displayed as well. This should be fixed, but it is not major, maybe minor. I mean, the organization of a valid combination is never used as when posting a document the organization is always taken from the document itself.

Sorry for the late response

Eduardo
(0017503)
rafaroda (developer)
2009-06-22 09:57

 This issue is duplicated of 0009276

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2009-06-05 00:47 DavidV New Issue
2009-06-05 00:47 DavidV Assigned To => rafaroda
2009-06-05 03:30 DavidV Note Added: 0016970
2009-06-05 06:55 pjuvara Relationship added duplicate of 0009276
2009-06-05 06:55 pjuvara Status new => closed
2009-06-05 06:55 pjuvara Note Added: 0016972
2009-06-05 06:55 pjuvara Duplicate ID 0 => 9276
2009-06-05 06:55 pjuvara Resolution open => duplicate
2009-06-05 15:10 DavidV Status closed => new
2009-06-05 15:10 DavidV Resolution duplicate => open
2009-06-05 15:10 DavidV Note Added: 0017024
2009-06-05 15:17 DavidV Note Edited: 0017024
2009-06-05 15:24 rafaroda Note Added: 0017025
2009-06-05 15:24 rafaroda Assigned To rafaroda => eduardo_Argal
2009-06-05 15:24 rafaroda Severity critical => major
2009-06-05 15:50 pjuvara Note Added: 0017030
2009-06-05 15:52 pjuvara Note Added: 0017031
2009-06-05 15:52 pjuvara Relationship added related to 0004266
2009-06-05 15:59 pjuvara Note Edited: 0017030
2009-06-05 16:02 rmorley Issue Monitored: rmorley
2009-06-05 18:17 DavidV Note Added: 0017049
2009-06-08 08:56 psarobe Note Added: 0017067
2009-06-08 08:56 psarobe Status new => feedback
2009-06-08 08:56 psarobe Note Added: 0017068
2009-06-08 19:32 pjuvara Note Added: 0017116
2009-06-08 19:32 pjuvara Status feedback => new
2009-06-11 00:58 eduardo_Argal Note Added: 0017201
2009-06-22 09:57 rafaroda Status new => closed
2009-06-22 09:57 rafaroda Note Added: 0017503
2009-06-22 09:57 rafaroda Resolution open => duplicate
2009-06-23 00:00 anonymous sf_bug_id 0 => 2810573

Copyright © 2000 - 2009 MantisBT Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker