When having an invoice with multiple lines having the same
product_id and account_id, the residual amount was wrong.
This is due to the fact the residual amount of each line
was computed on the residual amount of the invoice divided
by the number of lines of the invoice, and the fact the main
select of the sql view was grouped by product_id, account_id.
So, for an invoice defined as
Product Account Total
A 1 10
A 1 10
B 1 10
The invoice analysis, grouped by product, account, computed
Product Account Total Residual
A 1 20 10
B 1 10 10
The residual amount '10' of the first line being
30 (the residual amount of the invoice)
divided by 3 (the number of lines in the invoice)
The residual amount of the invoice should actually be divided by
the number of lines in the invoice * the count
of occurences in the group by clause
So, in this case, (30 / 3) * 2 = 20
Replacing the big jointure by
SELECT count(*) FROM account_invoice_line l where invoice_id = ai.id
to get the number of lines in the invoice
is just an optimization for performances
opw-621672
Partners totals were not correct if the partner paid partially an invoice in advance
For an invoice of 20.000 in the future, with a payment made in advance of 5000
The column not due must contains 20.000, as the amount is not yet due
One of the column 1-30, 30-60, ... (accordingly on when the payment was made). must contains -5000
The total should be 15.000
This is related to rev. db98434e85
rev. abe5c803a0 forgot some partial reconciliations when the date domain was other than BETWEEN (for instance, <= stop date or >= start date, alone, not between)
Besides, the rev. abe5c803a0 did not care about account move being posted or not.
rev. db98434e85 took several times the same partially reconciled moves lines
If a company contact (a partner with a company set as parent) had invoices, and the company of this contact was duplicated, all the invoices lines were duplicated, on the original invoice moreover (new lines were added on existing invoices)
The report includes all due payments, not only the one after the maturity date.
The maturity date is displayed in the report so no confusion is possible for payments below the maturity date.
Fixes#3064
[FIX] account: Preserve analytic account on tax lines which are on same general account as invoice line
After careful analysis, I'm now convinced it is a good thing to preserve
the analytic account on taxes line which have the same general account
as the invoice line.
This is the best default case and will save time for users,
while leaving the flexibility to adapt the analytic account on
taxes manually.
[FIX] account: Error when manually adding analytic account in the generated tax lines on an invoice
fixes#374
fixes https://bugs.launchpad.net/ocb-addons/+bug/1084822
The fix considers invoice tax lines with different analytic account
are equivalent for the purpose of checking if the list of tax line
is complete.
Caveat, this changes the structure of keys in the dictionary
returned by account.invoice.tax's compute method, I suppose this
is ok for the master branch.
General totals were not computed at all, due to the condition "if not self.ids" which was always true as self.ids wasn't set.
Besides, a parameter allows to display only partner with balance greater than 0, which was completely ignored by the totals computation methods: The totals always included all partners, even those having balance equals to 0
When no result is found on the function field 'invoice' (account.move.line), instead of returning {move_id: (False, '')}, return {move_id: False} (expected for m2o fields)
Fixes#2138, opw 613096
Explicitely refresh invoice browse_record(...) in order to have correct 'date' in account.move.
Use context_today() date instead of time.strftime() for date_invoice. (opw 611210)
Avoid revalidating the complete account moves
that contain the lines being reconciled.
The reconciliation does not change the validity
of those moves anyway.
This represents a very important speed up of
reconciliation when moves with several hundred
lines are involved.
The residual amount is typically needed to render the
online payment forms (payment acquirers).
Payments on the other hand rely on account.move.line,
something that portal users should never be allowed to read.
Removing the field from the view by setting a model-level
group permission ensures they will not see an error.