Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Chris Travers
On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Travers wrote: > > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Chris Travers wrote: > >>> On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Travers wrote: > > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Charley Tiggs
Chris Travers wrote: > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Chris Travers wrote: >>> On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chris Travers wrote: > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, the process happened prior to the 1.2.8 ho

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Chris Travers
On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Travers wrote: > > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Chris Travers wrote: > >>> On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, the process happened prior to the 1.2.8 hotfix. The attempt to >

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Charley Tiggs
Chris Travers wrote: > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Chris Travers wrote: >>> On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, the process happened prior to the 1.2.8 hotfix. The attempt to reverse the transaction happened after. >>> THis is probably

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Chris Travers
On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Travers wrote: > > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yes, the process happened prior to the 1.2.8 hotfix. The attempt to > >> reverse the transaction happened after. > > > > THis is probably related to the issue

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Charley Tiggs
Chris Travers wrote: > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, the process happened prior to the 1.2.8 hotfix. The attempt to >> reverse the transaction happened after. > > THis is probably related to the issue the hotfix was designed to fix. > > If you entered the invoice

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Chris Travers
On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, the process happened prior to the 1.2.8 hotfix. The attempt to > reverse the transaction happened after. THis is probably related to the issue the hotfix was designed to fix. If you entered the invoice for 10 items and sold them, the q

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Charley Tiggs
Yes, the process happened prior to the 1.2.8 hotfix. The attempt to reverse the transaction happened after. Charley Chris Travers wrote: > Did this happen prior to the installation of the 1.2.8 hotfix? > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Chris Travers
Did this happen prior to the installation of the 1.2.8 hotfix? Best Wishes, Chris Travers On 10/12/07, Charley Tiggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's the scenario: > > 1) Purchase order placed for 15 widgets. > > 2) Partial delivery made of 10 widgets. > > 3) Vendor invoice created based on th

[Ledger-smb-devel] Questions about allocation

2007-10-12 Thread Charley Tiggs
Here's the scenario: 1) Purchase order placed for 15 widgets. 2) Partial delivery made of 10 widgets. 3) Vendor invoice created based on the partial delivery. 4) 10 separate customers place an order for 10 of those widgets. A look at the entry in the invoice table for this widget from the ven