On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Luke wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> Well, for billing, there really ought to be an authoritative contact
>> record. Thinking about this for emailing we might want to create a
>> new contact_class record for billing email with a unique cons
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Chris Travers wrote:
> Well, for billing, there really ought to be an authoritative contact
> record. Thinking about this for emailing we might want to create a
> new contact_class record for billing email with a unique constraint on
> the (credit_id, contact_class) field whe
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Luke wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:02 PM, John Locke wrote:
>>> Hi, Chris,
>>>
>>> The current defaults look reasonable to me... possibly adding the email
>>> field. If this can be changed in the database (as it
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:02 PM, John Locke wrote:
>> Hi, Chris,
>>
>> The current defaults look reasonable to me... possibly adding the email
>> field. If this can be changed in the database (as it sounds like you've
>> set up), that should be fine to
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, John Locke wrote:
> Ok. Ran across a different issue related to the new tax account stuff,
> that might be related.
>
> LedgerSMB::DBObject provides an object wrapper around stored functions
> -- when called with a method that is not populated in the class
> defin
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:02 PM, John Locke wrote:
> Hi, Chris,
>
> The current defaults look reasonable to me... possibly adding the email
> field. If this can be changed in the database (as it sounds like you've
> set up), that should be fine to start.
Actually currently there is no email colu
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:14 PM, John Locke wrote:
> In 1.3, there is a new "taxform" checkbox on invoice lines, but I have
> no idea what that's for -- is that to override the default behavior?
It's for use for things like 1099's on the AP side, and similar things
on the AR side.
Basically fo
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Luke wrote:
> I just had 1.2.21 email a backup to myself.
>
> The subject of the message was:
>
> LedgerSMB Backup / -1.2.0-20110611.sqlc
>
> The file attachment was called:
>
> -1.2.0-20110611.sql
>
> I have two problems with this.
>
> First, is that the file is o
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On IRC, mst noted that we're using "very 1998 style" code and
> deployment-dependent style code, suggesting all 'new style' code
> should probably be written against PSGI
> [https://github.com/miyagawa/psgi-specs/blob/master/PSGI.pod].
Inte
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> Last weekend, I added non-local gotos using exception handling to
> replace 'exit;' calls.
>
> Today, mst showed up on IRC (coincidentally), telling me about an
> issue with running our code under suEXEC conditions. That bit was
> fixed in r
On IRC, mst noted that we're using "very 1998 style" code and
deployment-dependent style code, suggesting all 'new style' code
should probably be written against PSGI
[https://github.com/miyagawa/psgi-specs/blob/master/PSGI.pod].
Reading that document, I concluded we can't support that standard as
Thinking about it another second, I might just need to use an eval { }
block; after all, I'm not really all that interested in the actual
error. I'm only interested in being able to clean up the loose ends
such as any open db connections.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
Last weekend, I added non-local gotos using exception handling to
replace 'exit;' calls.
Today, mst showed up on IRC (coincidentally), telling me about an
issue with running our code under suEXEC conditions. That bit was
fixed in r3304, but as he did some code review, he pointed out my use
of Erro
John Locke writes:
> So I guess I'd like to see some sort of invoice-level setting for
> "apply tax automatically" vs. "add tax manually", and with the latter,
> a spot to put in the tax and enter an appropriate location code and
> rate that can be correlated in the future, in a spreadsheet downloa
I just had 1.2.21 email a backup to myself.
The subject of the message was:
LedgerSMB Backup / -1.2.0-20110611.sqlc
The file attachment was called:
-1.2.0-20110611.sql
I have two problems with this.
First, is that the file is obviously binary. Should it have the sql
extension?
Second, is i
Ok. Ran across a different issue related to the new tax account stuff,
that might be related.
LedgerSMB::DBObject provides an object wrapper around stored functions
-- when called with a method that is not populated in the class
definition, it looks for a stored function of that name, and then par
Hi,
To summarize what the system currently has available (and how I think
it's supposed to work) the "tax" stuff is controlled at several levels:
1. COA account -- whether an account contains tax transactions (and
which screens to make it available on)
2. Customer/Vendor account -- whether a par
Hi, Chris,
The current defaults look reasonable to me... possibly adding the email
field. If this can be changed in the database (as it sounds like you've
set up), that should be fine to start.
However, I'm not getting correct data when I do a search... Maybe this
is an update issue -- I ran the
Hi, Erik,
See below...
On 06/19/2011 12:18 PM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> I'm not really used to the system where you extract relevant changes
> into the updates/ directory. Can someone walk me through how that
> would work out fro this commit?
>
Since I just had to do this to update our production
None at all!
On 06/19/2011 04:48 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> \Ok. I see I misread the patch. The GL issue is there already. I am
> thinking of changing the column header to "description" instead of
> "payee."
>
> Any objection there?
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
> -
I have set up the search function to allow for the menu to specify
which column including checkboxes are to be checked.
For those using 1.3, can you take a look and tell me which checkboxes
you think should be checked by default?
Best wishes,
Chris Travers
---
Chris Travers writes:
> The only legitimate reason I can see would be if someone checked it by
> accident and wanted to uncheck it before things were really
> configured. It seems to me the simple answer is to disallow
> unchecking when the account exists in the tax table, i.e. has already
> been
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> "Luke" == Luke writes:
> Luke> Why?
>
> Luke> I mean, I know it would be kind of nonsensical to uncheck that box
> after
> Luke> the fact, but if for some reason someone really wanted to, maybe they
> Luke> should b
> "Luke" == Luke writes:
Luke> Why?
Luke> I mean, I know it would be kind of nonsensical to uncheck that box
after
Luke> the fact, but if for some reason someone really wanted to, maybe they
Luke> should be able to.
Luke> So I'll ask the question: is there any concei
committed, also with the recon patch (but plan to change the column
name on that one).
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:21 AM, John Locke wrote:
> Ok. This is the last one of the set from yesterday... Couple bug fixes
> to get the right account, as well as a change to the behavior of Cash ->
> Vouchers
Because Erik's been doing a bunch of work on Mailer.pm, I am deferring
to his review on this patch.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:16 AM, John Locke wrote:
> When using the "Email" button to send an invoice to a customer, the
> email form does not populate the email/cc/bcc fields from the customer
> a
26 matches
Mail list logo
