Wishlist: Make direct charge prorating smarter

[Tiffany Little]

Wishlist.

Now when prorating direct charges, the direct charge is split evenly across all of the funds used on an invoice.

However, I've had several libraries that say that won't work for them because it creates an unequal division of the cost between the funds.

So if there are two funds used on the invoice, and 5 copies using Fund A and 20 copies using Fund B. If the processing charge, for example, is $20 then Fund A pays $10 and Fund B pays $10. This presents a problem if their funds represent their libraries' budgets; then Fund A is essentially paying for some of Fund B's processing charges instead of splitting it 20/80.

My request would be that a prorated direct charge should divide the cost by the number of items being billed on the invoice, and then multiply that by the number of items using a particular fund. So in the above example, the per-item cost would be $.80, and so Fund A would pay $4.00 and Fund B would pay $16.

[Jennifer Pringle (jpringle-u)]

This isn't the behaviour we've seen with prorating.

Evergreen should be currently prorating based on the total amount being spent from each fund, not splitting evenly.

For example:
3 copies using Fund A come to $50 and 7 copies using Fund B come to $110 and the processing fee is $30.

When the invoice is prorated the processing fee is split $9.38 for Fund A and $20.63 for Fund B.

(test invoice done on 3.8 test server)

[Tiffany Little (tslittle)]

Going to mark this bug as Won't Fix, because I just tested after reading Jennifer's comment and I'm *pretty* sure I just didn't click the Prorate button? So definitely chalking this up to user error...