Deleting customers (editing customer on Invoice)

[Geert Janssens]

On Monday 22 June 2015 22:15:01 Christoph Holtermann wrote:
> Am 22.06.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Christoph Holtermann:
> > Hi Derek,
> > 
> > Am 22.06.2015 um 18:11 schrieb Derek Atkins:
> >> Christoph Holtermann <c.holtermann at gmx.de> writes:
> >>> I also found that menu now. Thanks !
> >>> 
> >>> I'd suggest
> >>> adding another button beside the owners
> >>> name to switch customer. Or to have a
> >>> big edit button that leads to the edit dialogue.
> >> 
> >> There is.  In the toolbar.  The 5th button in, if you hover over
> >> it,
> >> says "Edit Invoice".  In the olden days the buttons actually had
> >> text in them so it was more obvious what they did.  These days you
> >> have to hover to get that text, or know what an icon is.  I
> >> personally dislike this change, but it's not something we can fix
> >> in GnuCash -- it's a HIG change in the toolkit we use.
> > 
> > I also found that button a bit later.
> > 
> >>> And couldn't the text fields that are ineditable
> >>> be stopped to act as if they are ? It's misleading
> >>> to have the comment/memo field behave
> >>> the same way as the owner field. The only
> >>> difference is that what you type only stays
> >>> in the memo field. Maybe the background
> >>> could have another color (maybe grey) or
> >>> however ineditability is best displayed.
> >> 
> >> When I first wrote this code I was thinking that, and tried it. 
> >> But in so doing it also makes the fields non-selectable, which
> >> means you can't cut-and-paste out of them.  I preferred being able
> >> to cut-and-paste, so that's the way it is.
> > 
> > I agree that it's practical to be able to cut and paste. For the
> > dates it would be good if it was the same way. Couldn't that be
> > text fields in the same manner as the rest of the buttons beinng
> > initialised with the date as a string ?> 
> >> Find me a way to make the fields look greyed out but still allow
> >> cut-and-paste and I'll gladly apply that change!  (Patches welcome)
> > 
> > I'll think about it.
> > 
> >>> In the search invoice dialogue when i click
> >>> the button view/edit (I guess, I'm using the
> >>> german translation) the invoice ledger (is it
> >>> called so) shows. The term view/edit is some-
> >>> what misleading because I don't get directly
> >>> to the edit dialogue I today discovered but
> >>> only in another second step by the edit menu.
> >> 
> >> All roads take you to the Invoice Register Window.  The only time
> >> you
> >> get the pop-up dialog is when you create a new invoice or, from the
> >> invoice window click on "Edit Invoice" to edit the invoice
> >> metadata.
> >> 
> >> It's labeled View/Edit because that interface doesn't know if the
> >> Invoice has already been posted or not.  If it's been posted then
> >> it
> >> truly is a "View" window because it's completely non-editable. 
> >> However if it hasn't been posted then it is an "Edit" window,
> >> because you can manipulate the invoice contents.
> > 
> > I guess it's not intuitive that there are two edit windows and one
> > of them changes between view and edit. When I have this view/edit
> > changed to edit then I am happy because I can edit. But actually I
> > can't do all the editing because for /all/ I have to go to the 2nd
> > level of editing windows. If I don't know that there is a 2nd level
> > then I won't search for it because I don't know there is something
> > to look for. (At least I'm not the only one who did so.) So
> > improvements could be made in the direction of making it more
> > visible that the editing process has two stages. And I wonder why
> > there have to be two stages because the items in the 2nd dialog are
> > essentially the same as in the first with the only advantage that
> > they can actually be used. the only additional button is a radio
> > button on top and a help button.
> 
> I'm wrong here. Of course there's another important difference that
> the buttons beside customer and "Auftrag" are on the one hand edit
> and on the other hand choose.

True. This could be merged in one interface as well if needed.

Regards,

Geert