Re: Thoughts on Voiding Invoices

[David Tangye <..hidden..>]

On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 19:39 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:

> Then I misunderstood you.  I was suggesting that FIFO accounting for
> commodities (i.e. anything where one item is comparable to the next)
> should be handled such that the logical parts are assumed to have
> shifted invoces.
OK, I agree there: that's OK.
>   You suggested that this would be done by triggers,
> which would foul up your audit trail.
No, its still OK, the audit trail needs to work at database level, and
thus will pick up these changes.

The audit trail should be triggered at the database level anyway, else
other parties add-ons will circumvent it. Ohhh, the penny drops: the
current audit trail is in the perl/client programs, so its an
application-code ie client level audit trail. I was thinking
of /assuming a more comprehensive audit trail facility than what I guess
is currently implemented.
> 
> The point is that the other invoices are not affected at all.  The
> books are actually just adjusted to produce the correct numbers.  If
> this is not what you meant, then my point doesn't hold up.
OK I think I have it all now. Your point holds up for bulk items. For
discrete items, the voided item is still sitting in your warehouse,
would not have been yet sold on any other invoice, and now can be resold
at markup from its cost. Shuffling costs over invoice is not needed in
this case. In other words, both ways are correct: it depends on whether
the goods are uniquely identifiable or not.