Lot link problems

[Geert Janssens]

On Tuesday 09 September 2014 09:52:42 Jim wrote:
> Geert Janssens <janssens-geert <at> telenet.be> writes:
> 
> I was caught out by this too. I just rebuilt my computer with a
> different version of Linux, and in the upgrade I was moved from 2.4
> to 2.6, unbeknownst to me. I started adding invoices and payments and
> was horrified by all the alien entries appearing. I thought I'd
> really screwed something up!
> 
> Anyway I thought I'd add a comment to this thread just to say that
> although I do use the Business > Customer > Invoice tools to set up
> invoices, I often go to the Accounts Receivable view just to check
> that they've been correctly processed, and also to look up
> information such as invoice numbers, which I find easier than using
> the built-in search tools. In fact I'm a small business, so I always
> have my Current Account and Accounts Payable windows open, and that's
> about all I look at.
> 
> I'd prefer it if I didn't have to look at four lines per transaction,
> as it clutters the view and makes it harder to find what I'm looking
> for. To that end, I'd second having a "Hide/View Lot Links" function.
> Or maybe they could be hidden/revealed on an invoice by invoice basis
> with a toggle.
> 
> I'm just giving this feedback as its clear that many "normal users"
> don't behave as expected: nothing new there I guess. :-)
> 
> Jim
> 
Hi Jim,

Thanks for your clarifications. I understand GnuCash is just a tool and everybody uses a tool in 
his own particular way. With all the reactions I got so far, it's clear you all are very creative in 
finding useful ways to use gnucash - intended or not :)

Anyway concerning the topic of lot links. I did think a lot about this (no pun intended) and I 
don't believe that showing/hiding lot links is the proper solution. That will lead to confusion and 
mistakes.

The better solution is to reduce the use of lot links. While revisiting this I found that a direct 
transaction between two lots in the AP/AR registers is only required when two documents of 
opposite sign are involved, like when you offset a bill/invoice with a credit note for example.

In all other payment cases the old behaviour of 2.4 can still be used (with some minor 
adaptations).

The good news is that I have reworked this code for the upcoming 2.6.4 release. Most payments 
will be handled similar to what used to be in 2.4. Only when you have an invoice/bill to offset 
with a credit note a lot link will be created. For this particular case I have also altered the memo 
on the transaction to make it more clear what the transaction is doing exactly.

In addition I have extended "Action->Check & Repair->This/All/Sub account(s)" to clean up all 
unnecessary lot links that do exist currently. So the existing mess can be cleaned up as well.


Geert