Style sheet images and invoice post date problems

[Geert Janssens]

On maandag 6 juni 2011, Axel Essbaum wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 18:39, Axel Essbaum wrote:
> > 2) What is the expected behavior of posting an invoice regarding the post
> > date?
> > 
> > Should it always be set to the current date when the "Post" button is
> > pressed?  I see that many of the invoices I've posted since going to
> > 2.4.5 have a Date Posted much earlier than they should.  Many have a
> > Date Posted matching the first date listed in the invoice entries, but
> > some have a date of a later invoice entry.  Few have the correct Date
> > Posted.  I can't reproduce this problem with a new invoice - it's using
> > today's date for the Date Posted - but maybe if I leave that invoice
> > open until tomorrow it will stay stuck on today's date (June 6) even
> > though I post it on June 7...?
> 
> Some more experimentation suggests that the Post date is by default set to
> the date of the "next" invoice entry (meaning, the unfinished one at the
> bottom of the entry list).
> 
Actually, the post date is set by default to the invoice's Opening date. This 
date is also used as default date for the invoice entries.

> I think what's been happening is I add a new entry to an invoice (which
> inherits the date of the previous entry) and hit <enter>, then I go back
> and change the date of that entry to the correct date, but the "next"
> entry has already inherited the date of the previous entry.  And this old
> date keeps getting propagated forward down the entry list and ends up as
> my Date Posted.
> 
> Has something changed since 2.2.9 in the way entry dates are propagated
> forward?  Did the "next" entry used to default to <today>, instead of the
> date of the previous entry?  I never had this problem in 2.2.9, so I'm
> wondering what happened...
> 
Yes, this was changed during the 2.4 development cycle. It seemed like a good 
idea at the time to improve the workflow (less actions to take to create an 
invoice from scratch to posted), but it turns out the logic behind it is 
flawed. It should probably reverted. There is a bug report open to request 
this [1].

Geert

[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=646541