Proposal for some changes to the fields of AcctgTrans/AcctgTransEntry

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

I would like to introduce the following changes to the entity definitions of AcctgTrans and AcctgTransEntry:

1) move the field AcctgTransEntry.currencyUomId to AcctgTrans.currencyUomId (but keeping the AcctgTransEntry.origCurrencyUomId as is now)
2) add the new field AcctgTrans.totalAmount: for a valid transaction the field (its absolute value) will have to match with absolute value of the sum of all credits (or debits); before a transaction it is posted, the system will check that AcctgTrans.totalAmount = sum of all credits (AcctgTransEntry) = sum of all debits (AcctgTransEntry)

Main reasons for this:
a) since the records in AcctgTrans actually represents the lines of a Journal, it makes sense to have in them all the fields required by journals (type/description of the transaction, date and amount)
b) the user workflow will be improved: when the AcctgTrans is created (before the entries) the user already know the amount to be posted (and split into the different Ledgers)

What do you think?

Jacopo

[Chirag Manocha]

I totally agree on these changes. This will also helps in effective report
generations.

Regards
--
Chirag Manocha
Freelancer
[phone]


On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to introduce the following changes to the entity definitions
> of AcctgTrans and AcctgTransEntry:
>
> 1) move the field AcctgTransEntry.currencyUomId to AcctgTrans.currencyUomId
> (but keeping the AcctgTransEntry.origCurrencyUomId as is now)
> 2) add the new field AcctgTrans.totalAmount: for a valid transaction the
> field (its absolute value) will have to match with absolute value of the sum
> of all credits (or debits); before a transaction it is posted, the system
> will check that AcctgTrans.totalAmount = sum of all credits
> (AcctgTransEntry) = sum of all debits (AcctgTransEntry)
>
> Main reasons for this:
> a) since the records in AcctgTrans actually represents the lines of a
> Journal, it makes sense to have in them all the fields required by journals
> (type/description of the transaction, date and amount)
> b) the user workflow will be improved: when the AcctgTrans is created
> (before the entries) the user already know the amount to be posted (and
> split into the different Ledgers)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

2) sounds like a good improvement to me

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

>I would like to introduce the following changes to the entity definitions of AcctgTrans and AcctgTransEntry:
>
> 1) move the field AcctgTransEntry.currencyUomId to AcctgTrans.currencyUomId (but keeping the AcctgTransEntry.origCurrencyUomId as
> is now)
> 2) add the new field AcctgTrans.totalAmount: for a valid transaction the field (its absolute value) will have to match with
> absolute value of the sum of all credits (or debits); before a transaction it is posted, the system will check that
> AcctgTrans.totalAmount = sum of all credits (AcctgTransEntry) = sum of all debits (AcctgTransEntry)
>
> Main reasons for this:
> a) since the records in AcctgTrans actually represents the lines of a Journal, it makes sense to have in them all the fields
> required by journals (type/description of the transaction, date and amount)
> b) the user workflow will be improved: when the AcctgTrans is created (before the entries) the user already know the amount to be
> posted (and split into the different Ledgers)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>
>

[Anil Patel-3]

Jacopo,
Thanks for thinking through this. Makes sense to me.

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/sponsors/sponsors

On Nov 23, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> I would like to introduce the following changes to the entity definitions of AcctgTrans and AcctgTransEntry:
>
> 1) move the field AcctgTransEntry.currencyUomId to AcctgTrans.currencyUomId (but keeping the AcctgTransEntry.origCurrencyUomId as is now)
> 2) add the new field AcctgTrans.totalAmount: for a valid transaction the field (its absolute value) will have to match with absolute value of the sum of all credits (or debits); before a transaction it is posted, the system will check that AcctgTrans.totalAmount = sum of all credits (AcctgTransEntry) = sum of all debits (AcctgTransEntry)
>
> Main reasons for this:
> a) since the records in AcctgTrans actually represents the lines of a Journal, it makes sense to have in them all the fields required by journals (type/description of the transaction, date and amount)
> b) the user workflow will be improved: when the AcctgTrans is created (before the entries) the user already know the amount to be posted (and split into the different Ledgers)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>

[Sumit Pandit-3]

Hi Jacopo, These changes are good, +1.

--
Thanks And Regards
Sumit Pandit
 
On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Anil Patel wrote:

> Jacopo,
> Thanks for thinking through this. Makes sense to me.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Anil Patel
> HotWax Media Inc
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/sponsors/sponsors
>
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> I would like to introduce the following changes to the entity definitions of AcctgTrans and AcctgTransEntry:
>>
>> 1) move the field AcctgTransEntry.currencyUomId to AcctgTrans.currencyUomId (but keeping the AcctgTransEntry.origCurrencyUomId as is now)
>> 2) add the new field AcctgTrans.totalAmount: for a valid transaction the field (its absolute value) will have to match with absolute value of the sum of all credits (or debits); before a transaction it is posted, the system will check that AcctgTrans.totalAmount = sum of all credits (AcctgTransEntry) = sum of all debits (AcctgTransEntry)
>>
>> Main reasons for this:
>> a) since the records in AcctgTrans actually represents the lines of a Journal, it makes sense to have in them all the fields required by journals (type/description of the transaction, date and amount)
>> b) the user workflow will be improved: when the AcctgTrans is created (before the entries) the user already know the amount to be posted (and split into the different Ledgers)
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Sorry for the delay in taking a look at this... I'll second (or fifth?) other in saying that this looks like a fine idea.

-David


On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> I would like to introduce the following changes to the entity definitions of AcctgTrans and AcctgTransEntry:
>
> 1) move the field AcctgTransEntry.currencyUomId to AcctgTrans.currencyUomId (but keeping the AcctgTransEntry.origCurrencyUomId as is now)
> 2) add the new field AcctgTrans.totalAmount: for a valid transaction the field (its absolute value) will have to match with absolute value of the sum of all credits (or debits); before a transaction it is posted, the system will check that AcctgTrans.totalAmount = sum of all credits (AcctgTransEntry) = sum of all debits (AcctgTransEntry)
>
> Main reasons for this:
> a) since the records in AcctgTrans actually represents the lines of a Journal, it makes sense to have in them all the fields required by journals (type/description of the transaction, date and amount)
> b) the user workflow will be improved: when the AcctgTrans is created (before the entries) the user already know the amount to be posted (and split into the different Ledgers)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>