[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-423) Compilation fails due to missing licence header in some files
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-423?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15965768#comment-15965768 ] Thisura commented on FINERACT-423: -- Hi Raju, Regarding issues, you should look into dev list or the [gitter|https://gitter.im/openMF/mifos]. > Compilation fails due to missing licence header in some files > --- > > Key: FINERACT-423 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-423 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Task >Reporter: Raju Metgiri >Assignee: Markus Geiss >Priority: Trivial > Attachments: Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 15.59.00.png > > Original Estimate: 1h > Remaining Estimate: 1h > > if a developer does git clone of the current repo and starts a build, the > build will fail. This caused due to the task "licenseMain" as some of the > files are missing licence headers. I would like to correct this and submit > the changes. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (FINERACT-389) Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL codes
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15963344#comment-15963344
]
Thisura edited comment on FINERACT-389 at 4/10/17 7:03 PM:
---
There is a limitation in implementing this in the backend. In the database, we
are storing only the "classification_enum" in the "acc_gl_account"
Classification Enum has the following values for respective account types.
{code}
ASSET - 1
LIABILITY - 2
EQUITY - 3
INCOME - 4
EXPENSE - 5
{code}
The values can't be used to reflect the ascending order of names. Therefore
ORDER BY "classification_enum" won't work in the sql query.
There fore we have two options.
* Write a sorting function to sort the result set based on the
classification_enum and then on gl_code.
* Change the classification_enum values to reflect the ascending order of
account types and add ORDER BY classification_enum ASC, gl_code ASC
The changed enums will look like follows.
{code}
ASSET - 1
LIABILITY - 5
EQUITY - 3
INCOME - 4
EXPENSE - 2
{code}
What is the best option? From the maintenance point of view, I think the first
option is better. But from the performance point of view, the second option is
better.
was (Author: thisura):
There is a limitation in implementing this in the backend. In the database, we
are storing only the "classification_enum" in the "acc_gl_account"
Classification Enum has the following values for respective account types.
{code}
ASSET - 1
LIABILITY - 2
EQUITY - 3
INCOME - 4
EXPENSE - 5
{code}
The values can't be used to reflect the ascending order of names. Therefore
ORDER BY "classification_enum" won't work in the sql query.
There fore we have two options.
* Write a sorting function to sort the result set based on the
classification_enum and then on gl_code.
* Change the classification_enum values to reflect the ascending order of
account types and add ORDER BY classification_enum ASC, gl_code ASC
The changed enums will look like follows.
{code}
ASSET - 1
LIABILITY - 5
EQUITY - 3
INCOME - 4
EXPENSE - 2
{code}
What is the best option? From the maintainance point of view I think the first
option is better. But from the performance point of view, the second option is
better.
> Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL
> codes
>
>
> Key: FINERACT-389
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Accounting
>Reporter: Santosh Math
>Assignee: Markus Geiss
>Priority: Minor
> Labels: p2
>
> Reported by Mexina Daniel at https://mifosforge.jira.com/browse/MIFOSX-2825
> Original Description:
> Accounts in chart of accounts are arranged by their account type but those
> accounts in the specific account type are randomly arranged.
> I was recommending for the accounts in the same account type to be arranged
> by their GL code. Since the relating accounts will be under one header and so
> their GL codes will be following each other and bring presentable
> arrangement. (accounts in the same header, their GL codes should have
> relation)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (FINERACT-389) Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL codes
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15963344#comment-15963344
]
Thisura edited comment on FINERACT-389 at 4/10/17 6:56 PM:
---
There is a limitation in implementing. In the database, we are storing only the
"classification_enum" in the "acc_gl_account"
Classification Enum has the following values for respective account types.
{code}
ASSET - 1
LIABILITY - 2
EQUITY - 3
INCOME - 4
EXPENSE - 5
{code}
The values can't be used to reflect the ascending order of names. Therefore
ORDER BY "classification_enum" won't work in the sql query.
There fore we have two options.
* Write a sorting function to sort the result set based on the
classification_enum and then on gl_code.
* Change the classification_enum values to reflect the ascending order of
account types and add ORDER BY classification_enum ASC, gl_code ASC
The changed enums will look like follows.
{code}
ASSET - 1
LIABILITY - 5
EQUITY - 3
INCOME - 4
EXPENSE - 2
{code}
What is the best option? From the maintainance point of view I think the first
option is better. But from the performance point of view, the second option is
better.
was (Author: thisura):
There is a limitation in implementing. In the database, we are storing only the
"classification_enum" in the "acc_gl_account"
Classification Enum has the following values for respective account types.
{code}
ASSET - 1
LIABILITY - 2
EQUITY - 3
INCOME - 4
EXPENSE - 5
{code}
The values can't be used to reflect the ascending order of names. Therefore
ORDER BY "classification_enum" won't work in the sql query.
There fore we have two options.
* Write a sorting function to sort the result set based on the
classification_enum and then on gl_code.
* Change the classification_enum values to reflect the ascending order of
account types and add ORDER BY classification_enum ASC, gl_code ASC
The changed enums will look like follows.
{code}
ASSET - 1
LIABILITY - 5
EQUITY - 3
INCOME - 4
EXPENSE - 2
{code}
> Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL
> codes
>
>
> Key: FINERACT-389
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Accounting
>Reporter: Santosh Math
>Assignee: Markus Geiss
>Priority: Minor
> Labels: p2
>
> Reported by Mexina Daniel at https://mifosforge.jira.com/browse/MIFOSX-2825
> Original Description:
> Accounts in chart of accounts are arranged by their account type but those
> accounts in the specific account type are randomly arranged.
> I was recommending for the accounts in the same account type to be arranged
> by their GL code. Since the relating accounts will be under one header and so
> their GL codes will be following each other and bring presentable
> arrangement. (accounts in the same header, their GL codes should have
> relation)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-389) Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL codes
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15963335#comment-15963335 ] Thisura commented on FINERACT-389: -- In the above PR https://github.com/openMF/community-app/pull/2157 the fix will work only in the community-app. However as discussed in the thread "Does the changes in apache fineract platform necessary to fix FINERACT issues", it is suggested to implement these kinds of changes in the backend, to decouple the front-end. New PR sent at https://github.com/apache/incubator-fineract/pull/330 to incorporate this into the backend. > Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL > codes > > > Key: FINERACT-389 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Accounting >Reporter: Santosh Math >Assignee: Markus Geiss >Priority: Minor > Labels: p2 > > Reported by Mexina Daniel at https://mifosforge.jira.com/browse/MIFOSX-2825 > Original Description: > Accounts in chart of accounts are arranged by their account type but those > accounts in the specific account type are randomly arranged. > I was recommending for the accounts in the same account type to be arranged > by their GL code. Since the relating accounts will be under one header and so > their GL codes will be following each other and bring presentable > arrangement. (accounts in the same header, their GL codes should have > relation) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-423) Compilation fails due to missing licence header in some files
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-423?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15962421#comment-15962421
]
Thisura commented on FINERACT-423:
--
You can correct these errors automatically by running
{code}
./gradlew licenseFormatMain licenseFormatTest licenseFormatIntegrationTest
{code}
Please, refer this
[thread:https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mifosdeveloper/LsaPLLkK_3U]
before starting fixing this.
> Compilation fails due to missing licence header in some files
> ---
>
> Key: FINERACT-423
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-423
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Task
>Reporter: Raju Metgiri
>Assignee: Markus Geiss
>Priority: Trivial
> Attachments: Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 15.59.00.png
>
> Original Estimate: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 1h
>
> if a developer does git clone of the current repo and starts a build, the
> build will fail. This caused due to the task "licenseMain" as some of the
> files are missing licence headers. I would like to correct this and submit
> the changes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-419) Non-Person Client codes can not be updated to blank
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-419?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15948857#comment-15948857 ] Thisura commented on FINERACT-419: -- [~tonic...@gmail.com] I tested this scenario with apache-fineract and community-app develop branches. The issue is not reproducible there. However, when I run the community-app in developer mode with grunt serve, the issue was reproduced. Then I debugged the EditClientController.js and confirmed that the formData.clientNonPersonDetails.mainBusinessLineId is passing null to the API. Can you please guide me to reproduce this issue. > Non-Person Client codes can not be updated to blank > --- > > Key: FINERACT-419 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-419 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Client >Reporter: Brian C Cooke >Assignee: Markus Geiss > Labels: gsoc2017, p2 > > Steps to reproduce: > 1. Create a client with Legal Form=Entity and assign this client a value from > the Main Business Line. Save. > 2. Edit this client and try to remove Main Business Line (assign back to > --Select Main Business Line). Save. > 3. Edit again and observe Main Business Line is still assigned. > Seems to be an issue for Client Nonperson domain object, as other drop downs > related to Client domain object are working as expected. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-389) Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL codes
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15947542#comment-15947542 ] Thisura commented on FINERACT-389: -- [~santoshmath] PR sent at https://github.com/openMF/community-app/pull/2157 Please review and merge. > Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL > codes > > > Key: FINERACT-389 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Accounting >Reporter: Santosh Math >Assignee: Markus Geiss >Priority: Minor > Labels: p2 > > Reported by Mexina Daniel at https://mifosforge.jira.com/browse/MIFOSX-2825 > Original Description: > Accounts in chart of accounts are arranged by their account type but those > accounts in the specific account type are randomly arranged. > I was recommending for the accounts in the same account type to be arranged > by their GL code. Since the relating accounts will be under one header and so > their GL codes will be following each other and bring presentable > arrangement. (accounts in the same header, their GL codes should have > relation) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-389) Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL codes
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15946422#comment-15946422 ] Thisura commented on FINERACT-389: -- I am working on this. > Arrange the accounts that fall under one account type in order of their GL > codes > > > Key: FINERACT-389 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-389 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Accounting >Reporter: Santosh Math >Assignee: Markus Geiss >Priority: Minor > Labels: p2 > > Reported by Mexina Daniel at https://mifosforge.jira.com/browse/MIFOSX-2825 > Original Description: > Accounts in chart of accounts are arranged by their account type but those > accounts in the specific account type are randomly arranged. > I was recommending for the accounts in the same account type to be arranged > by their GL code. Since the relating accounts will be under one header and so > their GL codes will be following each other and bring presentable > arrangement. (accounts in the same header, their GL codes should have > relation) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-297) cannot remove all Mapping Fees,Penalties to Income Accounts
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-297?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15946415#comment-15946415 ] Thisura commented on FINERACT-297: -- PR sent at https://github.com/apache/incubator-fineract/pull/326. Please review and merge. > cannot remove all Mapping Fees,Penalties to Income Accounts > --- > > Key: FINERACT-297 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-297 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Accounting >Reporter: Santosh Math >Assignee: Markus Geiss > Labels: confirm, p2 > > Reported by andrewDzakpasu at https://mifosforge.jira.com/browse/MIFOSX-1864 > Original Description: > create a loan product or go to a loan product to edit. > Go to Advanced Accounting Rule now add Map Penalties to Specific Income > Accounts, add two mappings and save. > Now edit the same product and remove the two mappings and save. > Now go back to the product and you will see that the two mappings are still > there no changes has happened. This could be due to the empty array of the > mappings sent to the api -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-297) cannot remove all Mapping Fees,Penalties to Income Accounts
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-297?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15946391#comment-15946391 ] Thisura commented on FINERACT-297: -- I am working on this. > cannot remove all Mapping Fees,Penalties to Income Accounts > --- > > Key: FINERACT-297 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-297 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Accounting >Reporter: Santosh Math >Assignee: Markus Geiss > Labels: confirm, p2 > > Reported by andrewDzakpasu at https://mifosforge.jira.com/browse/MIFOSX-1864 > Original Description: > create a loan product or go to a loan product to edit. > Go to Advanced Accounting Rule now add Map Penalties to Specific Income > Accounts, add two mappings and save. > Now edit the same product and remove the two mappings and save. > Now go back to the product and you will see that the two mappings are still > there no changes has happened. This could be due to the empty array of the > mappings sent to the api -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
