[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Vendor & Client name defaults for new Documents; Would you like them?

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM, David Godfrey <..hidden..> wrote:
This may be OK in a low transaction volume location,
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)

Same here.  However, a preview feature might be useful down the road.

This is fairly close to what I had mapped out in my head,
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.

I think I can shed more light on the issues in implementing this at present:

While it is possible, it seems to require an extensive modification and one cannot simply place it in the user preference side (which has no RI checking capabilities to the main data) or in the user preference screen.

The major issues are:

1)  Where is the data stored?  What is it linked to?  In 1.2, there are some nasty corner cases that could easily bite someone.  In 1.3 that is less of an issue.  For example, a user doesn't necessarily have an employee record, and user id's are not guaranteed to be  stored anywhere in the main db for 1.2.

2)  How is this managed?  Certainly not through user preferences....  I think one would need a separate administration screen.  Doing this in 1.2 is doable but a fair bit of work.  In 1.3, at least it becomes conceptually easier.

3)  Now, changing the  customer dropdown etc. in 1.2 or 1.3 means merging this all with existing legacy code.  While this is possible it is a pain.  However, this could be done with a bit of work and luck.

While it is possible to support a limited subset of LSMB instances this way in 1.2, I am not sure there would be a general solution to some of the problems.  Fortunately 1.3 changes some of this much for the better.