Re: Intended behavior with 2 departments

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Luke <..hidden..> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Luke <..hidden..> wrote:
>>> Departments newbie here...
>>>
>>> What is the intended behavior when orders with different departments set,
>>> are consolidated?
>>
>> Good question.  I have no idea off the top of my head.
>
> Comforting.;-)

I know....
>
>> We need to rethink this more carefully for 1.4.  Feedback would be welcome.
>
> So 1.3 does whatever (still unknown) 1.2 does?
> Whatever that is, it is most likely not what one wants.

Almost certainly.  Unfortunately the problem is not just the code but
the data structure.

it might either drop the department or use one of the departments from
one of hte invoices.

>
> The only thing I can think of, is causing departments to be associated
> with line items alo projects.


Yep.  that's probably what we will have to do.
>
> Force grouping by department, and reset running numbers within a
> departmental section of an order or invoice.

Unfortunately that is a very deep change and quite frankly isn't going
to happen before 1.4.  In the mean time, best answer is to send out
two invoices and a statement at the same time.
>
> 1 department = no change from current behavior.
>
Well, if we change the data structures, it will be different and,
presumably different.

> more than 1 = For invoice and order output, use multiple sections, headed
> by the department.
>
> For financial tracking, on a full payment, divide appropriately by line
> item into departments.  For a partial payment...go fish.:(  I have no idea
> how to handle a partial payment.  At least, not any that has any logic
> behind it.  I suppose you could pop up an apportion-by-department screen
> when entering payments, but that doesn't sound like something that goes
> well with the workflow.

Currently one thing about separate invoices is that it allows you to
handle partial payments however you like.

Hope this helps,
Chris Travers