RFC to remove accounting on product

55 views
Skip to first unread message

Cédric Krier

unread,
Sep 8, 2017, 2:00:07 PM9/8/17
to Tryton
Hi,

I have made a proposal on an old issue to improve the product
definition. https://bugs.tryton.org/issue3805
The idea is to remove all accounting properties from the product form
and only have them on the accounting category.

--
Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL
Email/Jabber: cedric...@b2ck.com
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/

Jan Grasnick | ag kommunikation

unread,
Sep 8, 2017, 2:07:20 PM9/8/17
to try...@googlegroups.com
Am 08.09.2017 um 19:59 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> Hi,
>
> I have made a proposal on an old issue to improve the product
> definition. https://bugs.tryton.org/issue3805
> The idea is to remove all accounting properties from the product form
> and only have them on the accounting category.
>
+1

simplifies creation of products

Artem Braga

unread,
Sep 10, 2017, 7:24:15 AM9/10/17
to tryton
Hello.

Support this proposal

Best regards
Artem

Sergi Almacellas Abellana

unread,
Sep 20, 2017, 11:28:54 AM9/20/17
to try...@googlegroups.com
El 08/09/17 a les 19:59, Cédric Krier ha escrit:
> Hi,
>
> I have made a proposal on an old issue to improve the product
> definition. https://bugs.tryton.org/issue3805
> The idea is to remove all accounting properties from the product form
> and only have them on the accounting category.
>

Makes sense for me as far as we keep the current _used properties to
allow customization by other modules if needed.

I doubt if we need two diferent accounting categories: One for taxes and
another for accounts.


--
Sergi Almacellas Abellana
www.koolpi.com
Twitter: @pokoli_srk

Cédric Krier

unread,
Sep 20, 2017, 12:35:06 PM9/20/17
to try...@googlegroups.com
On 2017-09-20 17:28, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote:
> I doubt if we need two diferent accounting categories: One for taxes and
> another for accounts.

I do not think., if needed some can use the tree structure to set
account at one level and taxes at another level.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages