Unable to install module when financial year does not exist

Bug #514163 reported by sraps (Alistek)
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Account Banking Framework

Bug Description

When there is no present financial year defined, module could not be installed. Although it is obvious that module would not function properly, it should be possible to install it without interacting the financial year.

Revision history for this message
Pieter J. Kersten (EduSense BV) (pieterj) wrote :

I noticed this in the test server as well, however there is no accounting data to be loaded by this module. So my guess is that it must originate in one of the depending modules, most likely account itself.

Can you find out where this happens?

Changed in account-banking:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Medium
Revision history for this message
sraps (Alistek) (erpsraps) wrote :

It seems that you add a field period_id to the account.bank.statement.line, which is required. When module is being installed application server tries to add that field to database and set default values to it. So the period_id is being calculated by find method, which can not find proper period.

Ok, I could agree with you, that period_id field should be required, but user may want to alter the statement line with some information which could not been figured by computer, but is obvious to the human. He may want to do this before posting those lines, so lines should be allowed to be imported without some information.

Revision history for this message
Pieter J. Kersten (EduSense BV) (pieterj) wrote :

To me it is obvious by now that banks use transaction feedback mechanisms to feed info that has little to do with transactions. I suggest we filter those and convert them to whatever it was meant to be. The input parser should then be extended to deliver invoices and notices and whatever pops up besides the transactions.

Bottom line: valid transactions already happened, so must be registered. Registered money transfers are always tied to an accounting period. By disabling the requirement to tie transactions to accounting periods, one gets the freedom to misuse transactions to feed whatever they see fit, which leads inevitably to information degradation.

On the short run: you are right, disabling the requirement fixes this bug.
On the long run: it will bite you. Big time.

I'll see what I can do to brighten up the default routine. Suggestions are welcome.

Changed in account-banking:
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers