Re: COGS incorrect when invoices are reposted

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

On 9/20/06, David Tangye <..hidden..> wrote:
.
> This is just one symptom of failure to (as I shall now say for the very
> last time, I promise)
>
> - Analyse and define/document fully and comprehensively within a clearly
> defined/documented s cope
> - Model
> - Design db and code.
>
> See where 'code' lives: last ***NOT*** first.

Agreed.  However...  There is also the apparent fact that nobody ever
defined test cases or ran them.  Largely due to the failure to define
specified behavior...  Most of this behavior *is* defined by
accounting boards.
> You are going to waste 95% of your energy in the near future if you do
> not start developing in the *correct* order.

With all due respect, we may have slightly different ideas of the
correct approach.  I don't think that we or our customers can afford
for us to re-engineer the entire application from scratch which is
what would be necessary in a bottom-up develop.

Note that most of the projects which have tried this approach are in
perpetual development with no releases ever.  As much as I would agree
with you if we were engineering from scratch, the situation simply
isn't that simple here.  We have to put food on the table somehow, and
our customers need something better than SQL-Ledger.  In this case, an
incrimental approach is *far* better than the attempt to build
everything from the ground up.

BTW, I think that Josh will agree me that mere 3nf is insufficient for
the db schema and that we need to be focusing on normalizing the data
as close to 5nf as possible, and that a great deal of attention needs
to be paid to the semantic outlay of the data.  Getting there is going
to require rewriting the entire application.  But if we try to do it
all at once, we are going to be here until well after HURD is
released.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers