[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FX gain/loss account selection: way forward
- Subject: Re: FX gain/loss account selection: way forward
- From: Erik Huelsmann <..hidden..>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:06:17 +0100
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Chris Travers <..hidden..> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Erik Huelsmann <..hidden..> wrote:
>> As promised this morning, here's my proposal on the way forward on the
>> FX gain/loss account identifiers in the account setting table.
>> The problem started out as this: there's a mismatch between
>> Payment.sql::payment_post() on one side and the defaults table and
>> standard CoA files on the other, because the former uses the FX_loss
>> and FX_gain configuration keys to retrieve account information to post
>> on while the latter stores said information using the fxgain_accno_id
>> and fxloss_accno_id configuration keys.
> After grepping relevant values, I think this is the sanest way
> forward. I do wonder though if this is something which may indicate a
> bug we inherited way back before 1.0.....
We might have indeed. I've replaced the FX_* and IC_* identifiers by
the identifiers they actually use in the database: *_accno_id.
As you know, the database settings also correctly show up in the
defaults screen now, with the exception of the case where the account
description contains parens. As discussed, that's filed as a bug.
You were thinking similar issues might exist in the bulk payments
workflow. However, when looking at payment_bulk_post(), that's not
doing any lookups based on the FX_gain and FX_loss keys, so, all might
turn out well. If that's true, hopefully we can continue our path to a
.10 release this week :-)