Menu
▾
▴
sql-ledger-users
|
From: Ed W <li...@wi...> - 2006-11-01 15:54:43
|
Hi
I am trying to add some extra custom reports to some of the screens. I
created bin/mozilla/custom_is.pl with the following content
$form->{selectformname} .= qq|<option
value="address_labels_a4">|.'Address Labels';
1;
However, this is not affecting the resulting form. I have tested that
this works ok to adjust simple things like "copies" - what do I need to
do differently to affect the list of available reports?
I can't quite figure out where the custom code gets loaded to debug this
- any pointers please?
Thanks
Ed W
|
|
From: Dieter S. <dsi...@sq...> - 2006-11-03 22:55:06
|
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Ed W wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am trying to add some extra custom reports to some of the screens. I
> created bin/mozilla/custom_is.pl with the following content
>
> $form->{selectformname} .= qq|<option
> value="address_labels_a4">|.'Address Labels';
> 1;
>
>
> However, this is not affecting the resulting form. I have tested that
> this works ok to adjust simple things like "copies" - what do I need to
> do differently to affect the list of available reports?
>
> I can't quite figure out where the custom code gets loaded to debug this
> - any pointers please?
Maybe someone over at the ledgersmb fork can help you free of charge.
After all that's what they wanted anyways. So, let's see if they can
follow through with community support.
I could help you too but since time is money and my time seems to be too
expensive for you try an alternative. East Indian and Russian labor is
cheap too.
--
Dieter Simader http://www.sql-ledger.com Tel: (780) 472-8161
DWS Systems Inc. Accounting Software Fax: (780) 478-5281
============== On a clear disk you can seek forever ================
|
|
From: Christopher M. <chr...@gm...> - 2006-11-04 07:01:59
|
On 11/3/06, Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...> wrote: > > I can't quite figure out where the custom code gets loaded to debug this > > - any pointers please? The custom code gets loaded early on in menu.pl. First /bin/mozilla/foo.pl is loaded (which are a bunch of functions), then the custom_foo.pl, followed by user_costom_foo.pl (if it exists). The idea being that these custom scripts re-define (and therefore over-ride) functions in foo.pl. Custom scripts are loaded before any authentication is done, so you don't want them to actually do work, just over-ride function definitions in the other scripts. Yes, the flow is a bit odd. > Maybe someone over at the ledgersmb fork can help you free of charge. > After all that's what they wanted anyways. So, let's see if they can > follow through with community support. We would be happy to. We've changed the scripts somewhat and removed the unnecessary duplication of bin/mozilla and bin/lynx scripts, and we've put the custom scripts into their own directory (bin/custom), but for the most part, the customization is fairly similar. Bring your question to the lsmb-users or lsmb-devel list, I'm sure someone there will be able to help you out. We've got plans for a whole slew more reports, with a lot of near-working code I believe. So, if your report is something that needed you might have some help building it, but at the very least you will get some advice on how to do it. Cheers, Chris |
|
From: Ed W <li...@wi...> - 2006-11-05 11:34:41
|
Hi Chris Thanks for the pointers > We've got plans for a whole slew more > reports, with a lot of near-working code I believe. So, if your report > is something that needed you might have some help building it, but at > the very least you will get some advice on how to do it. > I made some changes to the Latex reports (with Dieters help I might add) to consolidate quite large chunks of it into a single place. The idea was that the address layout, footer, header, etc were standard across most of the reports and so it made customisation a lot easier when you can change it in only one please Dieter, although my comments were out of order on a public list (please accept my apologies), I do think that if you are serious about benefiting from an open source model then you need to encourage people to contribute changes back to you in order to benefit. Otherwise all the benefit for sure is on our side that we get the code, but there is no major benefit for you in giving me the code? There have been a number of occasions that I have felt I would like to contribute to the SL project, but I haven't found it easy to get either a leg up, or some help with a bit of polishing and so most of the work has fallen by the wayside (I have a full time job, this stuff is just part-time). I have for example submitted one (incomplete) patch to ammend the way the reconciliation function shows information and yet despite some positive feedback on the list I didn't even get an acknowledgement that you had received my personal email about it?! I haven't progressed the work because I don't want to run my own private version and it's not worth my time if my changes will not be accepted (which is how I took your complete silence) Additionally I have tried several times to report a bug (and debug it) where stock gets lost if one uses the "shipping receive/sent" functions, then ammend and reports the related order/invoice. On about three occasions my messages on this subject appeared to be blocked from the list and I didn't receive any response from personal messages to you other than a single message that you didn't believe that it was happening? For other peoples reference, my years "updates" to the SL manual have recently expired, but I did buy one version of the book around 14 months ago. Dieter, I'm sorry that my budget doesn't seem to suit your prices. I have deliberately offered to pay for several bits of work in the past, and I most definitely *do* have a budget to spend on this software, but considering that high quality alternatives such as Sage exist for only 2-3x the price of an SQL-Ledger manual I really struggle to put up $12,000 (!) for a change to the tax calculation as per your quote. For others reading list, please do note that Dieter *has* been very helpful to me in the past, and I do not wish to imply that he has not. However, I *do* hope that he will take a hard look at the recent fork and try to merge in the improvements made there into the SL codebase and take onboard this source of new coding effort. My apologies again for the inappropriate post to the list Ed W P.S. Since I have now blown all chances of getting Dieter to do this work, if anyone is interested in paid work to implement changes to the SL fork to make it easier to work with UK VAT then please contact me offlist... |
|
From: Dieter S. <dsi...@sq...> - 2006-11-05 15:05:29
|
Ed, I really don't understand why you keep on complaining. There is an alternative, the new fork created by Travers and Murtagh, so why don't you just take your wishes up with them. If someone over there will rewrite the code for you, fine, I even look at it and borrow the code if it is any good. Perhaps for a change I get to borrow someone else work instead of always being the other way around. Would be a first though. Doesn't it ever make one wonder why there is forks based on SQL-Ledger and not forks based on a fork of SQL-Ledger? Maybe there is just a tiny chance I am doing something right since forks aren't created from forks but from SQL-Ledger. ;) Just some food for thought! -- Dieter Simader http://www.sql-ledger.com Tel: (780) 472-8161 DWS Systems Inc. Accounting Software Fax: (780) 478-5281 ============== On a clear disk you can seek forever ================ On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Ed W wrote: > Hi Chris > > Thanks for the pointers > > > > We've got plans for a whole slew more > > reports, with a lot of near-working code I believe. So, if your report > > is something that needed you might have some help building it, but at > > the very least you will get some advice on how to do it. > > > > I made some changes to the Latex reports (with Dieters help I might add) > to consolidate quite large chunks of it into a single place. The idea > was that the address layout, footer, header, etc were standard across > most of the reports and so it made customisation a lot easier when you > can change it in only one please > > Dieter, although my comments were out of order on a public list (please > accept my apologies), I do think that if you are serious about > benefiting from an open source model then you need to encourage people > to contribute changes back to you in order to benefit. Otherwise all > the benefit for sure is on our side that we get the code, but there is > no major benefit for you in giving me the code? > > There have been a number of occasions that I have felt I would like to > contribute to the SL project, but I haven't found it easy to get either > a leg up, or some help with a bit of polishing and so most of the work > has fallen by the wayside (I have a full time job, this stuff is just > part-time). > > I have for example submitted one (incomplete) patch to ammend the way > the reconciliation function shows information and yet despite some > positive feedback on the list I didn't even get an acknowledgement that > you had received my personal email about it?! I haven't progressed the > work because I don't want to run my own private version and it's not > worth my time if my changes will not be accepted (which is how I took > your complete silence) > > Additionally I have tried several times to report a bug (and debug it) > where stock gets lost if one uses the "shipping receive/sent" functions, > then ammend and reports the related order/invoice. On about three > occasions my messages on this subject appeared to be blocked from the > list and I didn't receive any response from personal messages to you > other than a single message that you didn't believe that it was happening? > > For other peoples reference, my years "updates" to the SL manual have > recently expired, but I did buy one version of the book around 14 months > ago. > > Dieter, I'm sorry that my budget doesn't seem to suit your prices. I > have deliberately offered to pay for several bits of work in the past, > and I most definitely *do* have a budget to spend on this software, but > considering that high quality alternatives such as Sage exist for only > 2-3x the price of an SQL-Ledger manual I really struggle to put up > $12,000 (!) for a change to the tax calculation as per your quote. > > > For others reading list, please do note that Dieter *has* been very > helpful to me in the past, and I do not wish to imply that he has not. > However, I *do* hope that he will take a hard look at the recent fork > and try to merge in the improvements made there into the SL codebase and > take onboard this source of new coding effort. > > My apologies again for the inappropriate post to the list > > Ed W > > > P.S. Since I have now blown all chances of getting Dieter to do this > work, if anyone is interested in paid work to implement changes to the > SL fork to make it easier to work with UK VAT then please contact me > offlist... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > |
|
From: Christopher M. <chr...@gm...> - 2006-11-05 19:53:58
|
On 11/5/06, Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...> wrote: > I even look at it and borrow the code if it is any > good. Perhaps for a change I get to borrow someone else work instead of > always being the other way around. Would be a first though. Yes, I can tell from SL's code. Dieter, check out CPAN, there is a lot of stuff there that you could be taking advantage of. We've replaced a lot of SL code with robust and mature CPAN modules - no sense in re-inventing the wheel if you don't have to. Also, you're more than welcome to take advantage of, and comment on any of our code and/or changes. > Doesn't it ever make one wonder why there is forks based on SQL-Ledger and > not forks based on a fork of SQL-Ledger? Maybe there is just a tiny chance > I am doing something right since forks aren't created from forks but from > SQL-Ledger. ;) Heh. That's a bit of an odd perspective. I haven't heard of anyone forking from a project because they were happy with it - quite the opposite in fact. Deciding to fork is not something that most sane people would do on a whim. There are definitely some things you did right, first to market is probably one, having a fairly full-featured application another. I suspect that by the time ledgersmb hits 2.0, we will probably not have any SL code it in anymore, or very little. We're moving as much of the code as we can to CPAN modules where appropriate, re-factoring most of the code structure, trying to separate UI from logic even further, enhancing for security best-practices and restructuring the database to use the features in Postgres (the trade-off being we've decided to drop support for any other database). With core Postgres developers as part of our fork, it would be insane for us to not take full advantage of this resource. Cheers, Chris |
|
From: Christopher M. <chr...@gm...> - 2006-11-05 19:15:29
|
On 11/5/06, Ed W <li...@wi...> wrote: > P.S. Since I have now blown all chances of getting Dieter to do this > work, if anyone is interested in paid work to implement changes to the > SL fork to make it easier to work with UK VAT then please contact me > offlist... Seneca has done quite a bit of work creating a tax module for lsmb, this allows for spiffy things like compounding taxes (in Quebec, QST has to be applied on top of total + GST). There are also folks there who do work for hire, and $12k would probably get you an entire re-write if that's what you wanted. :-) Cheers, Chris |
|
From: Ed W <li...@wi...> - 2006-11-05 20:19:11
|
Hi > Seneca has done quite a bit of work creating a tax module for lsmb, > this allows for spiffy things like compounding taxes (in Quebec, QST > has to be applied on top of total + GST). There are also folks there > who do work for hire, and $12k would probably get you an entire > re-write if that's what you wanted. :-) :-) What I have in mind in particular is adding a calculated tax column for each line of the invoice (instead of calculating it each time). This seems to be a sensible addition anyway so that old invoices don't change if you change the tax rate... In particular I want to have a tick box on each line (as per the Transaction screen) where you can override the calculated tax and change it per row. The point is sometimes each line can be a penny out if the supplier calculates it a funny way. Othertimes you want the ability to override the whole invoice to make it non-vatable because the shipment is going overseas. Second hand sales (and car sales and other margin sales) also need to have funny amounts of VAT charged which are based on the profit margin rather than the entire cost. I'm sure that there are otherways to skin this cat. Thoughts invited... Cheers Ed W |
|
From: C. D. H. <Du...@Du...> - 2006-11-05 22:56:36
|
Ed W wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>> Seneca has done quite a bit of work creating a tax module for lsmb,
>> this allows for spiffy things like compounding taxes (in Quebec, QST
>> has to be applied on top of total + GST). There are also folks there
>> who do work for hire, and $12k would probably get you an entire
>> re-write if that's what you wanted. :-)
>>
>
> :-)
>
> What I have in mind in particular is adding a calculated tax column for
> each line of the invoice (instead of calculating it each time). This
> seems to be a sensible addition anyway so that old invoices don't change
> if you change the tax rate...
>
> In particular I want to have a tick box on each line (as per the
> Transaction screen) where you can override the calculated tax and change
> it per row.
>
I don't necessarily need a tick per line, but I do need more tax
flexibility. I need to be able to disable tax if I'm drop shipping out
of state, or add tax if an out of state customer is picking up the goods
in my state. In short I need the ability to override the tax logic. On
January 13, 2005 Dieter wrote the following to me:
> Tax calculation based on shipto address will be implemented in a future
> version. This will eliminate the need to create a duplicate customer if
> shipments are out of state where no tax or a different tax applies.
I guess he didn't lie, as any future release could have improved tax
logic - we just haven't seen it yet. As far as I'm concerned the tax
logic is my biggest issue. If LedgerSMB, or any other fork for that
matter, allowed me tax flexibility I'd jump ship immediately.
Dunc
|
|
From: Jeff V. <jv...@ch...> - 2006-11-06 02:22:32
|
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 20:18 +0000, Ed W wrote: > Hi > > > Seneca has done quite a bit of work creating a tax module for lsmb, > > this allows for spiffy things like compounding taxes (in Quebec, QST > > has to be applied on top of total + GST). There are also folks there > > who do work for hire, and $12k would probably get you an entire > > re-write if that's what you wanted. :-) > > :-) > > What I have in mind in particular is adding a calculated tax column for > each line of the invoice (instead of calculating it each time). This > seems to be a sensible addition anyway so that old invoices don't change > if you change the tax rate... > I think the sales table that records invoices should contain the full details, including the amount of tax and the rate, since that is fixed once the sale is made, and should never be recalculated at a later date. If adjustments need to be made, that is a special case and should be handled with a GL entry to record the change and have it fully documented. One accounting system I worked with recorded the full details for each sale in each record so that when the document was reviewed at a later date it never needed to go back and pull the current inventory/parts information because price changes can screw up the earlier invoice amounts if the current data is used instead of the historical data. Any invoice could be reprinted exactly as initially created with no recalculations needed. That seems reasonable since once a sale is made it is actually a matter of immutable historical record. > In particular I want to have a tick box on each line (as per the > Transaction screen) where you can override the calculated tax and change > it per row. > That makes it very taxing on the user to be required to verify each line, and the rounding that occurs on each line is likely to make the total taxes for the invoice off by rounding errors. > The point is sometimes each line can be a penny out if the supplier > calculates it a funny way. Othertimes you want the ability to override > the whole invoice to make it non-vatable because the shipment is going > overseas. Second hand sales (and car sales and other margin sales) also > need to have funny amounts of VAT charged which are based on the profit > margin rather than the entire cost. > Rounding errors are the reason tax is charged on the invoice subtotal and not per line. I agree that there should be reasonable ways to manage taxes. Exceptions may need to be handled differently, but I would not ever want taxes calculated on a per line basis. It seems better to make a GL entry for special cases so there is a record and documentation of situations that are not taxed in a standard way. The tax man wants non-standard tax treatment documented for the possible audit situation. > I'm sure that there are otherways to skin this cat. Thoughts invited... > > Cheers > > Ed W > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users |
|
From: Ed W <li...@wi...> - 2006-11-06 14:29:45
|
Hi Jeff >> In particular I want to have a tick box on each line (as per the=20 >> Transaction screen) where you can override the calculated tax and chan= ge=20 >> it per row.=20 >> >> =20 > That makes it very taxing on the user to be required to verify each > line, and the rounding that occurs on each line is likely to make the > total taxes for the invoice off by rounding errors. > =20 Yes, sure I agree. I only suggested the method above because Dieter=20 vaguely suggested that this might be 10 times easier to code than just=20 having a tax override at the bottom of the invoice. However, I agree=20 that "all" I need is the ability to override any given invoice and=20 manually tap out the tax line (as per the Transaction page). Typical scenarios that crop up for me (just FYI), are - Vendors who charge VAT on the items, but forget to charge it on the=20 shipping amount (which is incorrect in the UK IMHO) - I have an online shopping cart which takes sales and payments and=20 regularly is =A30.01p different from the way SL calculates VAT - Second hand sales and other margin sales where the VAT is calculated=20 on the profit margin rather than the gross total - Shipping "out of state", or "out of state" customers who collect=20 (means in and out of the EU for me) I guess this probably summarises most other peoples needs. Yes, sure this is a wish list without any code, but it's a starting point= Ed W |
|
From: Ed W <li...@wi...> - 2006-11-06 14:48:55
|
Dieter > Maybe someone over at the ledgersmb fork can help you free of charge. > After all that's what they wanted anyways. So, let's see if they can > follow through with community support. > Hmm, although it's true that you have helped me on a number of occasions, it's also true that you have NOT helped me with a couple of enquiries as well. Some of the things that you have NOT helped me with have been when I am enquiring about how to do some development on SL which would of course have been submitted back. It seems that your desire to stagnate development by other people than just yourself is the reason that few people are submitting changes as much as anything else? The few people that can and have offered development support for SL appear to now be persona non-gratis on this list, and all in all you seem to treat people doing development in a hostile manner and see them as threatening your livelyhood (instead of trying to work with them and encourage their work and make SL an even better product) I remind you that I tried to send you one patch and and you didn't even acknowledge my email... I have said on many occasions that I am looking for a decent product with paid support, I don't know why you continue to insist that I'm some kind of freeloader? However, the price for that support has to be "reasonable" - SL is no match for the heavyweight products like Sage and yet your support has been "intermittant" and quotes for work have been excessive. It's not clear to me why you won't accept reasonable levels of sponsorship for work which would be contributed back into the SL codebase? What I mean is that if I requested a change and wanted to own the resulting source and for it NOT to be integrated with the public SL then I would very much expect to have to pay your full consultancy rates. However, if the finished code is integrated with the public SL, then I do NOT expect you to quote me top end prices because personally I expect to own copyright on any work where I am paying your full time price. > I could help you too but since time is money and my time seems to be too > expensive for you try an alternative. East Indian and Russian labor is > cheap too. > I think you are out of touch with the world Dieter. For example, a number of the products that I sell are hardware devices (telephones) where we have the firmware modified and customised to suit our needs - this means employing an IT guy to rewrite usually embedded C code to suit our specifications. These are US and UK employees (1st world not 3rd world) and their prices are a fraction of $12,000 per change. I'm sorry, but $12,000 for adding one extra text box to the invoice screen is premium pricing by anyone's definition. I remain willing to continue to sponsor SL financially - it's a product with excellent potential - I await your suggestions on ways that I can achieve this for a budget of less than $12,000 Regards Ed W |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X