On 2016-12-04 07:29, Carlos Eduardo Sotelo Pinto wrote:
> Hi Cedrik
> 
> 2016-12-04 6:34 GMT-05:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>:
> 
> > On 2016-12-03 21:46, Carlos Eduardo Sotelo Pinto wrote:
> > > Hi Cedrik, List
> > >
> > > Yes Cedirk, you are right, there is no difference on accounting, just on
> > > the printing, on this way:
> > >
> > > - Simple invoice, no taxes must be printed, but the taxes are the same
> > > - Commercial invoice, taxes printing is mandatory as a common invoice.
> >
> > So I do not see why you could not use the same layout. A simple invoice
> > with taxes shown will not make it invalid.
> >
> 
> ​Yes, I currently using this layout​, however I am having some issues, on it

If you do not describe the issue, it is not possible to follow you.

> > > I guess, the main difference is relted to party, no the invoice at
> > itself.
> > > As the information provided and the ER diagram, Party could be
> > categorized
> > > on :
> > >
> > > - Companies, which one just could request for a common or commercial
> > invoice
> > > - No companies, this kinds of partyes couldnt request the common invoice,
> > > just simple invoice
> >
> > I do not understand the point. You just said that both type does exactly
> > the same.
> >
> 
> ​Yes, on accounting side is the same behavior, but printing report are
> different. I have solve that on this way
> 
> - Giving a sub type [ Boleta, Factura ] with diferent sequences

First time, you talk about sequence. What are the requirements?

> Until here all is ok and work perfectly, the issue is:
> 
> - There is no restruiction on the use. I mean.
> 
> - Boletas ( Simple invoice ) must be ussed just for NON Companies ( Parties
> with no VAT identification )
> - Facturas ( Current Invoice ) must be used just for COmpanies ( Parties
> with VATidentification )
> 
> And the generated problems
> 
> - A lots of mistakes generated for the final users since there is no a
> restriction for Parties
> 
> * Simple invoices generated for Companies that must be nulled later
> * Comercial invoiced generated for Non COmpanies
> 
> I need to fins a way on the tryton layout in order to restrict:

I do not understand what you mean, a layout will never restrict
anything.

> - Parties must have one of this identifiers as unique and main identifier:
> 
> CODE| Description
> ==================================
> * 0 | DOC.TRIB.NO.DOM.SIN.RUC
> * 1 | DOC. NACIONAL DE IDENTIDAD
> * 4 | CARNET DE EXTRANJERIA
> * 6 | REG. UNICO DE CONTRIBUYENTES
> * 7 | PASAPORTE
> * A | CED. DIPLOMATICA DE IDENTIDAD​
> 
> ​- Based on the before point, commercial or current invoice must be
> generated just for customer parties with Code 6 ( Companies ) other wise,
> just simple invoice
> 
> - That codification must be part of the document party and a combination
> with the number of the document. I must be suing idetifiers, however
> identifiers are on a many to many relation ship, I could add more than one
> identifier to one party, that is a legal issue. I could fix it just
> extending parties.

I do not understand how this can be a legal issue. If the party has many
identifier, it is something he has.

> - Invoice types must be coded on this way ( There are 19 different taxable
> documents but we could start with this 4):
> 
> ​ CODE| Description     | Document Name
> =======================================
> ​* ​
> ​01 | ​
> FACTURA
> ​         | ​380
> 
> ​* ​
> ​03 ​
> ​| ​
> BOLETA DE VENTA
> ​ | 346​
> 
> ​* ​
> ​07 ​
> ​| ​
> NOTA DE CREDITO
> ​ | 381​
> 
> ​* ​
> ​08 ​
> ​| ​
> NOTA DE DEBITO
> ​  | 383​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​THat is my issues, I have it clear on my side, extend the invoice witha
> relation ship restriction on the party document type, however I dont want
> to break trytonic way. That is teh reason on asking the a suggest

I still do not understand what is the problem you try to solve and why.

-- 
Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL
Email/Jabber: [email protected]
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"tryton" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/20161204153944.GH71015%40tetsuo.

Reply via email to