Yeah, if you look at the headers for both messages laura.instanthosting.com.auOn Fri, 22 Jan 2010, David Godfrey wrote:This is a resend, sent 2 messages 4 minutes apart, one arrived straight away, this one still has not over an hour later.I got this, and then the missing version, in immediate succession.:) This is not a fast, or consistently processing, list. Comments below on the actual issue.
held onto the delayed message until AFTER the 2nd one was sent!
Have already approached my Hosting provider requesting it be sorted.
I actually figured that anything found in the Check Later slot would be considered a serious error.David Godfrey wrote: Luke wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, David Godfrey wrote: Could people please offer their thoughts on the following The current behavior when opening a new Invoice, Order or Transaction is to automatically select the last used Vendor or Client. I have just found a number of Invoices , all on the Vendor side, that have been entered against the wrong Vendor, presumably the last vendor used. Does anyone think that it would be useful to have a System>Defaults option to change this behavior. Probably to one of.... Last Used BLANK A Specific Vendor The first and last option would not solve the problem you reported. If they are going to post without checking the transactee, then they'll do it regardless. I can not think of a case wherein I would rather that transactions go against a vendor if they are in error, unless it is a fake "check later" type of vendor.The reason I said this, is because it is not really supposed to be possible to change the vendor on an existing transaction. So a check later vendor/customer, while potentially useful, would relax accounting standards in my opinion, and suggest that transaction editing is not that big a deal.
It could be a report that gets run periodically.
It would flag staff that may need additional training.
The actual document would need to be voided and reraised.
but even for my use I would find it to be interruptive,
so a high volume site may be unhappy with a popup option.
Aside from that with most browsers defaulting to "block popups"
it could be an issue for non technical users.
(have to teach them how to config browser)
This is fairly close to what I had mapped out in my head,The middle option, which would force a manual selection, would be the most useful alternative to last-used, I would think.I agree Luke, Blank certainly seems to be the best thing from a "get it right" perspective. Although there are bound to be people that would like to retain the current behavior.I have never had much of a need for the current behavior: it is rare that I generate two of the same thing, for the same customer/vendor, at one time. On the other hand, if you are a government contractor, with only one customer except for rare exceptions, the "last-used" or "default-to" options do have their place, so I would like to see at least one of them available if anything makes it into the main release as a result of this conversation.Point taken, System default, with a User Default that can be overridden by the System Default if a System Wide check box is set.I have spoken with Chris T about this, a system default is doable, but User Defaults are not an option with the existing code. Post 1.3 this will change, but for now System Wide is the only option.The way I would imagine having to do it, is to have a table which tracks user ID, last-used vendor, last-used customer, use-vendor (0 or 1), use-customer (0 or 1). The modification would be, when the user enters an AP/AR document, if "use" is TRUE, pull the vendor/customer from the table. If it is FALSE, use the system default that would normally be used, which currently is last-used. In system defaults, a TRUE/FALSE selection for whether to operate based on users or not. If TRUE, update all entries to TRUE in the above described table fragment. If FALSE, update them to FALSE. Alternatively, drop the use-* fields from that table, and just select against the defaults table, since in this version, it is an all or nothing anyway. A modification to this plan, would use the above described table, but make the controlling field be a three-way: system|user|fixed If system, see FALSE above. If user, see TRUE above. If fixed, a vendor or customer or both, will have to be set. If set, the selection code should pull that record always, thus implementing your fixed default transactee idea. Just some thoughts--haven't written any code, obviously, but at least the SQL side should be trivial. Luke
and in principle would work fine.
Unfortunately there is an issue with the way per user defaults are handled in the current code.
This makes it unlikely to be added (per user default) until maybe 1.3, more likely 1.4,
when the User Preferences section has been rewritten.
We can still do System Defaults now though.