Derek Atkins wrote: > Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [snip] > >> Once lot->splits == NULL, there are no splits, so unless there is some >> other way that the payment might be tied in, it would be safe to >> replace "lot->account = NULL" with "qof_instance_set_destroying(lot, >> TRUE)". >> > > No, I do not think it would be safe to destroy the lot from under the > invoice, at lease without auditing all uses of the API. > > ok >> Phil >> > > -derek > > PS: I'll just note that this is why I keep saying that the DB backend > is just a data store; putting in table requirements like this just > causes problems for GnuCash and just makes everyone's life more > difficult. > Well, the other option was to remove the table constraint. I had hoped to leave it in, but the code would need to be scrubbed and I don't have the time right now to do it.
Phil _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
