Menu
▾
▴
sql-ledger-users
|
From: <je...@ix...> - 2009-05-12 22:30:27
|
I do bank reconcilations every month and for 6yrs I've never had an issue. This month I pull up the reconcilation screen, and its showing items that are reconciled. I try to limit the date range... 04/01/09 to 04/30/09, and I have items that are reconciled showing up from Feb and Mar, they even have the check mark in the reconcilation column. My beginning balance is not the amount that I reconciled to in the previous month, and when I put in the previous months ending balance and hit update, it shows 0.00 difference. I hit done. I've closed the system, got back in and.... its stilll showing me everything thats been reconciled. Is there something in the system that I need to change? preferences or something? I've never had this come up before. We did upgrade from 2.61 to 2.8.23 early last month. Thanks Jeff General Accounting Manager IX Systems |
|
From: John S. <jo...@sc...> - 2009-05-13 15:30:39
|
Hi Jeff, I had the same problem and this was solved by a patch supplied by Armaghan at sa...@le... Regards, John ----- Original Message ----- From: <je...@ix...> To: <sql...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:30 AM Subject: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items > > > I do bank reconcilations every month and for 6yrs I've never had an > issue. This month I pull up the reconcilation screen, and its showing > items that are reconciled. I try to limit the date range... 04/01/09 > to 04/30/09, and I have items that are reconciled showing up from Feb > and Mar, they even have the check mark in the reconcilation column. My > beginning balance is not the amount that I reconciled to in the > previous month, and when I put in the previous months ending balance > and hit update, it shows 0.00 difference. I hit done. I've closed the > system, got back in and.... its stilll showing me everything thats > been reconciled. > Is there something in the system that I need to change? preferences > or something? I've never had this come up before. We did upgrade from > 2.61 to 2.8.23 early last month. > Thanks > Jeff > > General Accounting Manager > > IX Systems > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks to > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK > i700 > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users |
|
From: Hamish B. <hw...@be...> - 2009-05-14 03:57:22
|
On Thu, 14 May 2009, John Saunders wrote: > I had the same problem and this was solved by a patch supplied by Armaghan > at sa...@le... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <je...@ix...> > To: <sql...@li...> > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:30 AM > Subject: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items > > > I do bank reconcilations every month and for 6yrs I've never had an > > issue. This month I pull up the reconcilation screen, and its showing > > items that are reconciled. I try to limit the date range... 04/01/09 > > to 04/30/09, and I have items that are reconciled showing up from Feb > > and Mar, they even have the check mark in the reconcilation column. My > > beginning balance is not the amount that I reconciled to in the > > previous month, and when I put in the previous months ending balance > > and hit update, it shows 0.00 difference. I hit done. I've closed the > > system, got back in and.... its stilll showing me everything thats > > been reconciled. Same problem here. I posted to the official SQL-Ledger forum at least two weeks ago (I pay for the Manual every year) and have received no response from either Dieter or a subscriber. I also solved the problem earlier with Armaghan's patch, for which I am very grateful - but of course whenever I upgrade I have to re-patch. Hamish -- Sent via KMail 1.9.7, Gentoo 1.12.11.1, Linux-2.6.22-gentoo-r8 |
|
From: Paul T. <pt...@wa...> - 2009-05-14 03:58:44
|
Just curious, is that patch in the main line as well, or just an insider knowledge item/ 2009/5/13 John Saunders <jo...@sc...> > Hi Jeff, > > I had the same problem and this was solved by a patch supplied by Armaghan > at sa...@le... > > Regards, > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <je...@ix...> > To: <sql...@li...> > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:30 AM > Subject: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items > > > > > > > > I do bank reconcilations every month and for 6yrs I've never had an > > issue. This month I pull up the reconcilation screen, and its showing > > items that are reconciled. I try to limit the date range... 04/01/09 > > to 04/30/09, and I have items that are reconciled showing up from Feb > > and Mar, they even have the check mark in the reconcilation column. My > > beginning balance is not the amount that I reconciled to in the > > previous month, and when I put in the previous months ending balance > > and hit update, it shows 0.00 difference. I hit done. I've closed the > > system, got back in and.... its stilll showing me everything thats > > been reconciled. > > Is there something in the system that I need to change? preferences > > or something? I've never had this come up before. We did upgrade from > > 2.61 to 2.8.23 early last month. > > Thanks > > Jeff > > > > General Accounting Manager > > > > IX Systems > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks > to > > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK > > i700 > > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > > _______________________________________________ > > sql-ledger-users mailing list > > sql...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks to > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK > i700 > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > |
|
From: John S. <jo...@sc...> - 2009-05-14 06:46:52
|
Hi Paul, I am not sure I understand your question. From what I can deduct, Armaghan is involved with a fork/branch based on SL and, as suggested by Hamish, one needs to re-patch each time you upgrade SL. Why a fix is not forthcoming I could not say as Armaghan mentioned in a previous post that he had submitted the patch to Dieter. Cheers, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Tammes" <pt...@wa...> To: <sql...@li...> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items > Just curious, is that patch in the main line as well, or just an insider > knowledge item/ > > 2009/5/13 John Saunders <jo...@sc...> > >> Hi Jeff, >> >> I had the same problem and this was solved by a patch supplied by >> Armaghan >> at sa...@le... >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <je...@ix...> >> To: <sql...@li...> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:30 AM >> Subject: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items >> >> >> > >> > >> > I do bank reconcilations every month and for 6yrs I've never had an >> > issue. This month I pull up the reconcilation screen, and its showing >> > items that are reconciled. I try to limit the date range... 04/01/09 >> > to 04/30/09, and I have items that are reconciled showing up from Feb >> > and Mar, they even have the check mark in the reconcilation column. My >> > beginning balance is not the amount that I reconciled to in the >> > previous month, and when I put in the previous months ending balance >> > and hit update, it shows 0.00 difference. I hit done. I've closed the >> > system, got back in and.... its stilll showing me everything thats >> > been reconciled. >> > Is there something in the system that I need to change? preferences >> > or something? I've never had this come up before. We did upgrade from >> > 2.61 to 2.8.23 early last month. >> > Thanks >> > Jeff >> > >> > General Accounting Manager >> > >> > IX Systems >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! >> > Your >> > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks >> to >> > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW >> > KODAK >> > i700 >> > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image >> > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com >> > _______________________________________________ >> > sql-ledger-users mailing list >> > sql...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your >> production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks >> to >> Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK >> i700 >> Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image >> processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com >> _______________________________________________ >> sql-ledger-users mailing list >> sql...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks to > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK > i700 > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users |
|
From: <la...@cl...> - 2009-05-14 08:32:24
|
Yikes...I notice that too and I just deal with it like with COGS, sales, and inventory getting all messed up if you ever reverse an invoice because of returns...Tim >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <je...@ix...> >>> To: <sql...@li...> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:30 AM >>> Subject: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > I do bank reconcilations every month and for 6yrs I've never had an >>> > issue. This month I pull up the reconcilation screen, and its showing >>> > items that are reconciled. I try to limit the date range... 04/01/09 >>> > to 04/30/09, and I have items that are reconciled showing up from Feb >>> > and Mar, they even have the check mark in the reconcilation column. >>> My >>> > beginning balance is not the amount that I reconciled to in the >>> > previous month, and when I put in the previous months ending balance >>> > and hit update, it shows 0.00 difference. I hit done. I've closed the >>> > system, got back in and.... its stilll showing me everything thats >>> > been reconciled. >>> > Is there something in the system that I need to change? preferences >>> > or something? I've never had this come up before. We did upgrade from >>> > 2.61 to 2.8.23 early last month. >>> > Thanks >>> > Jeff >>> > >>> > General Accounting Manager >>> > >>> > IX Systems >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! >>> > Your >>> > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but >>> thanks >>> to >>> > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW >>> > KODAK >>> > i700 >>> > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image >>> > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > sql-ledger-users mailing list >>> > sql...@li... >>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! >>> Your >>> production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks >>> to >>> Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW >>> KODAK >>> i700 >>> Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image >>> processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sql-ledger-users mailing list >>> sql...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your >> production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks >> to >> Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK >> i700 >> Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image >> processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com >> _______________________________________________ >> sql-ledger-users mailing list >> sql...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks to > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK > i700 > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > |
|
From: Armaghan S. <sa...@le...> - 2009-05-14 08:52:43
|
This patch is now available on ledger123.com's git repository at http://github.com/ledger123. Kindly test it and let me know any issues. I shall be happy to immediately correct any other issue. The repository version has been synced with sql-ledger-2.8.24. If you are not comfortable with git, email me offline and I shall send you the patched files. Regards -- - sql-ledger hosting, custom development and documentation. - http://ledger123.com |
|
From: Paul T. <pt...@wa...> - 2009-05-14 16:30:00
|
I do not (yet) have problems, but I would prefer the main program to be fixed. Beats loose patches that have to be re-applied, although a working patch is better than nothing. 2009/5/14 John Saunders <jo...@sc...> > Hi Paul, > > I am not sure I understand your question. From what I can deduct, Armaghan > is involved with a fork/branch based on SL and, as suggested by Hamish, one > needs to re-patch each time you upgrade SL. > > Why a fix is not forthcoming I could not say as Armaghan mentioned in a > previous post that he had submitted the patch to Dieter. > > Cheers, > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Tammes" <pt...@wa...> > To: <sql...@li...> > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:58 AM > Subject: Re: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items > > > > Just curious, is that patch in the main line as well, or just an insider > > knowledge item/ > > > > 2009/5/13 John Saunders <jo...@sc...> > > > >> Hi Jeff, > >> > >> I had the same problem and this was solved by a patch supplied by > >> Armaghan > >> at sa...@le... > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> John > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: <je...@ix...> > >> To: <sql...@li...> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:30 AM > >> Subject: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > I do bank reconcilations every month and for 6yrs I've never had an > >> > issue. This month I pull up the reconcilation screen, and its showing > >> > items that are reconciled. I try to limit the date range... 04/01/09 > >> > to 04/30/09, and I have items that are reconciled showing up from Feb > >> > and Mar, they even have the check mark in the reconcilation column. My > >> > beginning balance is not the amount that I reconciled to in the > >> > previous month, and when I put in the previous months ending balance > >> > and hit update, it shows 0.00 difference. I hit done. I've closed the > >> > system, got back in and.... its stilll showing me everything thats > >> > been reconciled. > >> > Is there something in the system that I need to change? preferences > >> > or something? I've never had this come up before. We did upgrade from > >> > 2.61 to 2.8.23 early last month. > >> > Thanks > >> > Jeff > >> > > >> > General Accounting Manager > >> > > >> > IX Systems > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! > >> > Your > >> > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but > thanks > >> to > >> > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW > >> > KODAK > >> > i700 > >> > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > >> > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > sql-ledger-users mailing list > >> > sql...@li... > >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > >> production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks > >> to > >> Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK > >> i700 > >> Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > >> processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> sql-ledger-users mailing list > >> sql...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks > to > > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK > > i700 > > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > > _______________________________________________ > > sql-ledger-users mailing list > > sql...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks to > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK > i700 > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > |
|
From: Dieter S. <dsi...@sq...> - 2009-05-14 16:51:18
|
The reconciliation process works as intended. If there are prior reconciled transactions showing up then the reconciliation process was not done correctly. Before applying a patch users should investigate why these transactions show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user error, well, then fix up your own f'up. On Thu, 14 May 2009, Armaghan Saqib wrote: > This patch is now available on ledger123.com's git repository at > http://github.com/ledger123. Kindly test it and let me know any > issues. I shall be happy to immediately correct any other issue. The > repository version has been synced with sql-ledger-2.8.24. > > If you are not comfortable with git, email me offline and I shall send > you the patched files. > > Regards > |
|
From: Michael H. <mh...@it...> - 2009-05-14 19:29:32
|
I beg to differ Dieter. It may work as the programmer who wrote it
intended, but if there is sufficient confusion as to the manner/means/
mode of that "working" to prompt other people to rewrite it and for
the end users to believe those re-writes have "fixed" it, then the
average person would have to conclude that the original code is
broken, at least insofar as it does not function in the real world as
the user expects it to. And when you come right down to it, spec or
no spec, it's really the users who ultimately have final say as to
whether something works.
Believe me, I'm not casting aspersions against your code. I know
you're very talented and if you say it works then I'm sure it does!
But it would be of benefit to all if some understanding were reached
as to why everyone else believes it doesn't. I would hazard to guess
that examining exactly what that patch does would be a good first step.
The second step would be to either incorporate the patch if it's
not actually harmful, or to broadcast to the world exactly why the
patch is, in fact, a Thing of Evil which will wreak havoc upon the
applier's SL universe.
Unfortunately the current situation creates doubt in everyone's
mind about both products and that doesn't help anybody. :(
Thanks!
Michael
On May 14, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Dieter Simader wrote:
The reconciliation process works as intended. If there are prior
reconciled transactions showing up then the reconciliation process
was not
done correctly.
Before applying a patch users should investigate why these transactions
show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user
error,
well, then fix up your own f'up.
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Armaghan Saqib wrote:
> This patch is now available on ledger123.com's git repository at
> http://github.com/ledger123. Kindly test it and let me know any
> issues. I shall be happy to immediately correct any other issue. The
> repository version has been synced with sql-ledger-2.8.24.
>
> If you are not comfortable with git, email me offline and I shall send
> you the patched files.
>
> Regards
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your
production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but
thanks to
Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW
KODAK i700
Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image
processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com
_______________________________________________
sql-ledger-users mailing list
sql...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users
|
|
From: Dieter S. <dsi...@sq...> - 2009-05-14 20:49:59
|
Take a statement from a bank and compare it to the reconcilation screen. It will match your statement. The reconciliation process in previous versions did not match because it was an ongoing process. With the new version you can go back and also reconcile past statements. On Thu, 14 May 2009, Michael Hasse wrote: > I beg to differ Dieter. It may work as the programmer who wrote it > intended, but if there is sufficient confusion as to the manner/means/ > mode of that "working" to prompt other people to rewrite it and for > the end users to believe those re-writes have "fixed" it, then the > average person would have to conclude that the original code is > broken, at least insofar as it does not function in the real world as > the user expects it to. And when you come right down to it, spec or > no spec, it's really the users who ultimately have final say as to > whether something works. > Believe me, I'm not casting aspersions against your code. I know > you're very talented and if you say it works then I'm sure it does! > But it would be of benefit to all if some understanding were reached > as to why everyone else believes it doesn't. I would hazard to guess > that examining exactly what that patch does would be a good first step. > The second step would be to either incorporate the patch if it's > not actually harmful, or to broadcast to the world exactly why the > patch is, in fact, a Thing of Evil which will wreak havoc upon the > applier's SL universe. > Unfortunately the current situation creates doubt in everyone's > mind about both products and that doesn't help anybody. :( > > > Thanks! > > Michael > > > On May 14, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Dieter Simader wrote: > > The reconciliation process works as intended. If there are prior > reconciled transactions showing up then the reconciliation process > was not > done correctly. > > Before applying a patch users should investigate why these transactions > show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user > error, > well, then fix up your own f'up. > > > On Thu, 14 May 2009, Armaghan Saqib wrote: > >> This patch is now available on ledger123.com's git repository at >> http://github.com/ledger123. Kindly test it and let me know any >> issues. I shall be happy to immediately correct any other issue. The >> repository version has been synced with sql-ledger-2.8.24. >> >> If you are not comfortable with git, email me offline and I shall send >> you the patched files. >> >> Regards >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but > thanks to > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW > KODAK i700 > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your > production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks to > Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK i700 > Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image > processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > |
|
From: Michael H. <mh...@it...> - 2009-05-14 21:37:11
|
This is interesting, as the questions seem to be revolving around old
versions working and new versions not working!
We haven't ever seen any problems either way, but we do things
pretty simply around here.
My suspicion would be that there is either a problem in the
upgrade process or the way the data is being interpreted within the
app and/or by the end user. (Perception is everything! :)
So we still come back to the original question of whether the
patch is valid...?
Anybody out there take a good look at what the patched code does
vs the current (and/or old) original code?
Thanks,
Michael
On May 14, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Dieter Simader wrote:
Take a statement from a bank and compare it to the reconcilation screen.
It will match your statement. The reconciliation process in previous
versions did not match because it was an ongoing process. With the new
version you can go back and also reconcile past statements.
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Michael Hasse wrote:
> I beg to differ Dieter. It may work as the programmer who wrote it
> intended, but if there is sufficient confusion as to the manner/means/
> mode of that "working" to prompt other people to rewrite it and for
> the end users to believe those re-writes have "fixed" it, then the
> average person would have to conclude that the original code is
> broken, at least insofar as it does not function in the real world as
> the user expects it to. And when you come right down to it, spec or
> no spec, it's really the users who ultimately have final say as to
> whether something works.
> Believe me, I'm not casting aspersions against your code. I know
> you're very talented and if you say it works then I'm sure it does!
> But it would be of benefit to all if some understanding were reached
> as to why everyone else believes it doesn't. I would hazard to guess
> that examining exactly what that patch does would be a good first
> step.
> The second step would be to either incorporate the patch if it's
> not actually harmful, or to broadcast to the world exactly why the
> patch is, in fact, a Thing of Evil which will wreak havoc upon the
> applier's SL universe.
> Unfortunately the current situation creates doubt in everyone's
> mind about both products and that doesn't help anybody. :(
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael
>
>
> On May 14, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Dieter Simader wrote:
>
> The reconciliation process works as intended. If there are prior
> reconciled transactions showing up then the reconciliation process
> was not
> done correctly.
>
> Before applying a patch users should investigate why these
> transactions
> show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user
> error,
> well, then fix up your own f'up.
>
>
> On Thu, 14 May 2009, Armaghan Saqib wrote:
>
>> This patch is now available on ledger123.com's git repository at
>> http://github.com/ledger123. Kindly test it and let me know any
>> issues. I shall be happy to immediately correct any other issue. The
>> repository version has been synced with sql-ledger-2.8.24.
>>
>> If you are not comfortable with git, email me offline and I shall
>> send
>> you the patched files.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ------
> The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances!
> Your
> production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but
> thanks to
> Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW
> KODAK i700
> Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image
> processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com
> _______________________________________________
> sql-ledger-users mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances!
> Your
> production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but
> thanks to
> Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW
> KODAK i700
> Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image
> processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com
> _______________________________________________
> sql-ledger-users mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your
production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but
thanks to
Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW
KODAK i700
Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image
processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com
_______________________________________________
sql-ledger-users mailing list
sql...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users
|
|
From: Armaghan S. <sa...@le...> - 2009-05-14 23:49:03
|
As I wrote in another thread, there are at least three issues: 1. When there are multiple receipts for a single invoice/date or same amount/date, only one is shown. This happens when * When source column is blank for both payments * When source column contains same value for both payments. 2) Marking one receipt of *same* invoice as reconciled will incorrectly mark the other receipt as reconciled as well. 3) Reconciled transactions are displayed on reconciliation screen forever making it inconvenient and error prone to do the reconciliation. If we can find a way to get rid of these issues without applying the patch, please let us know. Regards |
|
From: Michael H. <mh...@it...> - 2009-05-15 00:31:39
|
Thanks for the repost Armaghan, I missed the other thread.
And I take it these issues still exist even with the latest code
from Dieter?
Michael
On May 14, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Armaghan Saqib wrote:
As I wrote in another thread, there are at least three issues:
1. When there are multiple receipts for a single invoice/date or same
amount/date, only one is shown. This happens when
* When source column is blank for both payments
* When source column contains same value for both payments.
2) Marking one receipt of *same* invoice as reconciled will
incorrectly mark the other receipt as reconciled as well.
3) Reconciled transactions are displayed on reconciliation screen
forever making it inconvenient and error prone to do the
reconciliation.
If we can find a way to get rid of these issues without applying the
patch, please let us know.
Regards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables
unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine
for externally facing server and web deployment.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
_______________________________________________
sql-ledger-users mailing list
sql...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users
|
|
From: Dieter S. <dsi...@sq...> - 2009-05-15 00:58:51
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Armaghan Saqib wrote: > As I wrote in another thread, there are at least three issues: > > 1. When there are multiple receipts for a single invoice/date or same > amount/date, only one is shown. This happens when > > * When source column is blank for both payments > * When source column contains same value for both payments. Use a distinct source number. It is common practise in Europe to have a distinct number for every payment. Get used to some consistancy, if not live with the consequences! > > 2) Marking one receipt of *same* invoice as reconciled will > incorrectly mark the other receipt as reconciled as well. As it should because the source is the same. > > 3) Reconciled transactions are displayed on reconciliation screen > forever making it inconvenient and error prone to do the > reconciliation. Not so, use it properly. > > If we can find a way to get rid of these issues without applying the > patch, please let us know. You are certainly entitled to your opinion! |
|
From: Michael H. <mh...@it...> - 2009-05-15 02:29:27
|
On May 14, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Dieter Simader wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Armaghan Saqib wrote:
> As I wrote in another thread, there are at least three issues:
>
> 1. When there are multiple receipts for a single invoice/date or same
> amount/date, only one is shown. This happens when
>
> * When source column is blank for both payments
> * When source column contains same value for both payments.
Use a distinct source number. It is common practise in Europe to have a
distinct number for every payment. Get used to some consistancy, if not
live with the consequences!
======================
Sorry Dieter, that argument won't fly in the real world. The
application should also have some protection against user-error.
> 2) Marking one receipt of *same* invoice as reconciled will
> incorrectly mark the other receipt as reconciled as well.
As it should because the source is the same.
======================
Then why are the receipts listed separately? This is an application
error and/or inconsistency.
> 3) Reconciled transactions are displayed on reconciliation screen
> forever making it inconvenient and error prone to do the
> reconciliation.
Not so, use it properly.
======================
Again, the application should have some protection against user-error.
> If we can find a way to get rid of these issues without applying the
> patch, please let us know.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion!
======================
And people are also entitled to use another application.
If you want to keep customers Dieter you have to listen to what
they have to say. I realize you have a personal beef with Ledger123
and LedgerSMB and the other forks, but the fact is forks occur when
the original developer(s) won't listen to the users. Case in point!
I'm not saying I don't feel for you in this, I've worked on
enough apps myself to understand the developer's side of the
frustration equation all too well, but even if you're technically
100% right on all counts the reality of the situation is that the
rest of the world perceives otherwise and it behooves you to
understand why...
On a lighter note - thanks to both Armaghan and Dieter for helping
make the OSS world a better place for everyone!
Michael
|
|
From: John S. <jo...@sc...> - 2009-05-15 06:33:58
|
Hi All, The reconciliation machanism in SL is not unlike other accounting systems that I have worked on. My accounts department realised long ago (on another acounting system) to differentiate between different deposits on the same day using unique reference numbers. I have found that using the "Detailed" option when reconciling helps as this lists the individual items where a deposit or payment consists of more than one item. The downside is when there are a large number of invoices as part of the receipt of payment. Either way, my accounts depertment like the general functionality of SL and are appreciative to all who contribute to it. Cheers, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hasse" <mh...@it...> To: <sql...@li...> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [SL] SL: Cash Reconcilation showing past reconciled items > On May 14, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Dieter Simader wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 2009, Armaghan Saqib wrote: > >> As I wrote in another thread, there are at least three issues: >> >> 1. When there are multiple receipts for a single invoice/date or same >> amount/date, only one is shown. This happens when >> >> * When source column is blank for both payments >> * When source column contains same value for both payments. > Use a distinct source number. It is common practise in Europe to have a > distinct number for every payment. Get used to some consistancy, if not > live with the consequences! > ====================== > Sorry Dieter, that argument won't fly in the real world. The > application should also have some protection against user-error. > >> 2) Marking one receipt of *same* invoice as reconciled will >> incorrectly mark the other receipt as reconciled as well. > As it should because the source is the same. > ====================== > Then why are the receipts listed separately? This is an application > error and/or inconsistency. > >> 3) Reconciled transactions are displayed on reconciliation screen >> forever making it inconvenient and error prone to do the >> reconciliation. > Not so, use it properly. > ====================== > Again, the application should have some protection against user-error. > >> If we can find a way to get rid of these issues without applying the >> patch, please let us know. > You are certainly entitled to your opinion! > ====================== > And people are also entitled to use another application. > If you want to keep customers Dieter you have to listen to what > they have to say. I realize you have a personal beef with Ledger123 > and LedgerSMB and the other forks, but the fact is forks occur when > the original developer(s) won't listen to the users. Case in point! > I'm not saying I don't feel for you in this, I've worked on > enough apps myself to understand the developer's side of the > frustration equation all too well, but even if you're technically > 100% right on all counts the reality of the situation is that the > rest of the world perceives otherwise and it behooves you to > understand why... > > > On a lighter note - thanks to both Armaghan and Dieter for helping > make the OSS world a better place for everyone! > > Michael > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users |
|
From: Hamish B. <hw...@be...> - 2009-05-15 10:22:32
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Dieter Simader wrote: > Before applying a patch users should investigate why these transactions > show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user error, > well, then fix up your own f'up. It would be interesting to know why you didn't reply to me on your Forum, as a 'paid-up' member of SQL-Ledger since I started using it 3-4 years ago, and tell me I screwed up, and to fix my own f'up. Or else at least make some attempt to see if it might be a bug? Hamish -- Sent via KMail 1.9.7, Gentoo 1.12.11.1, Linux-2.6.22-gentoo-r8 www.bestbrook.com |
|
From: Dieter S. <dsi...@sq...> - 2009-05-15 16:54:04
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Hamish Bain wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 2009, Dieter Simader wrote: >> Before applying a patch users should investigate why these transactions >> show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user error, >> well, then fix up your own f'up. > > It would be interesting to know why you didn't reply to me on your Forum, as > a 'paid-up' member of SQL-Ledger since I started using it 3-4 years ago, and > tell me I screwed up, and to fix my own f'up. Or else at least make some > attempt to see if it might be a bug? Why should I hunt for a bug, just because you don't get it? I replied to your request with a detailed explaination of what you have to do. What more do you need? |
|
From: Hamish B. <hw...@be...> - 2009-05-15 23:14:59
|
On Sat, 16 May 2009, Dieter Simader wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 2009, Hamish Bain wrote: > > On Fri, 15 May 2009, Dieter Simader wrote: > >> Before applying a patch users should investigate why these transactions > >> show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user > >> error, well, then fix up your own f'up. > > > > It would be interesting to know why you didn't reply to me on your Forum, > > as a 'paid-up' member of SQL-Ledger since I started using it 3-4 years > > ago, and tell me I screwed up, and to fix my own f'up. Or else at least > > make some attempt to see if it might be a bug? > > > Why should I hunt for a bug, just because you don't get it? > > I replied to your request with a detailed explaination of what you have to > do. Not true. We have had no communication re Reconciliation either privately, on the Forum, or on this list. In my Forum enquiry I cut & pasted your instructions to 'tdiehl' of 09/04/07 to show you that 1) I had the same problem as 'tdiehl' and 2) I had made every effort to follow your instruction to fix this problem. Maybe you're confusing me with 'thdiehl'? > What more do you need? At the very least perhaps you could post to the privacy of the Forum the quick private email explanation that seems to have satisfied je...@ix...? Like Jeff I am familiar with the concept of 'Reconciliation', having used Paxton's Business Desk in the 1980's (cobol!) and then Quicken and MYOB before SQL-Ledger, but there is obviously some extra 'concept' in SQL-Ledger which is escaping me. Hamish -- Sent via KMail 1.9.7, Gentoo 1.12.11.1, Linux-2.6.22-gentoo-r8 |
|
From: Paul T. <pt...@wa...> - 2009-05-15 17:35:28
|
The whole concept of Bank Statements seems European to me, US citizens use checks and reconciliation instead iirc. I think the concept that reconciliation should match the bank statements like Dieter mentioned is solid and was long overdue. However, it might take some thinking and reconsidering to get the basic idea across to people who are not used to check statements and live with messages like ´the check is in the mail´. That way of accounting was part of the start of the worldwide mess we have right now to begin with. If the check is mentioned in the statement, it is in. And can be reconciled with the statement number and invoice number as unique identifier. If not, we might have a bad debt (or mortgage) on our hands. 2009/5/15 Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...> > On Fri, 15 May 2009, Hamish Bain wrote: > > > On Fri, 15 May 2009, Dieter Simader wrote: > >> Before applying a patch users should investigate why these transactions > >> show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user > error, > >> well, then fix up your own f'up. > > > > It would be interesting to know why you didn't reply to me on your Forum, > as > > a 'paid-up' member of SQL-Ledger since I started using it 3-4 years ago, > and > > tell me I screwed up, and to fix my own f'up. Or else at least make some > > attempt to see if it might be a bug? > > Why should I hunt for a bug, just because you don't get it? > > I replied to your request with a detailed explaination of what you have to > do. What more do you need? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > |
|
From: <je...@ix...> - 2009-05-15 18:32:05
|
What is the difference between the European and North American methodology? Is there one? I have been using SQL since the middle of 2003. My company started business in late 2002, and I needed to do the reconciliations on the past statements (as it had never been done), and I have done every reconciliation since, and every one has precisely matched my bank statements. I have done reconciliations at other companies, I have used Platnium, Quickbooks and Great Plains, and to me the concept is all the same, everything that isn't reconciled yet, shows up, once its reconciled its gone. My experience with this goes as far back as 1998. I think my main error in SQL has been that I was able to reconcile without putting in date ranges, and until we upgraded to 2.8, it has never been an issue. After a quick email exchange with Dieter, I think, if I do my next reconciliation and I put in the beginning and ending date ranges from the bank statement, and I ignore the fact that some past reconciled items will show up. I believe that on the reconciliation after one, all the past items will be properly reconciled, will not longer show up, and I will not have any issues going forward. I however did a work around on this round of reconciliations, I put in a start date equal to the current date, and that prevented Feb and Mar 2009 reconciled items from showing up. However, I will have to start doing reconciliations properly or this issue will show up every time. Jeff Jeff Kaminsky General Accounting Manager IX Systems On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:35:20 +0200, Paul Tammes <pt...@wa...> wrote: > The whole concept of Bank Statements seems European to me, US citizens use > checks and reconciliation instead iirc. > I think the concept that reconciliation should match the bank statements > like Dieter mentioned is solid and was long overdue. > > However, it might take some thinking and reconsidering to get the basic > idea > across to people who are not used to check statements and live with > messages > like ´the check is in the mail´. That way of accounting was part of the > start of the worldwide mess we have right now to begin with. If the check > is > mentioned in the statement, it is in. And can be reconciled with the > statement number and invoice number as unique identifier. If not, we might > have a bad debt (or mortgage) on our hands. > > > 2009/5/15 Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...> > >> On Fri, 15 May 2009, Hamish Bain wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 15 May 2009, Dieter Simader wrote: >> >> Before applying a patch users should investigate why these > transactions >> >> show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user >> error, >> >> well, then fix up your own f'up. >> > >> > It would be interesting to know why you didn't reply to me on your > Forum, >> as >> > a 'paid-up' member of SQL-Ledger since I started using it 3-4 years > ago, >> and >> > tell me I screwed up, and to fix my own f'up. Or else at least make > some >> > attempt to see if it might be a bug? >> >> Why should I hunt for a bug, just because you don't get it? >> >> I replied to your request with a detailed explaination of what you have > to >> do. What more do you need? >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial >> Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables >> unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine >> for externally facing server and web deployment. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects >> _______________________________________________ >> sql-ledger-users mailing list >> sql...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users |
|
From: Michael H. <mh...@it...> - 2009-05-15 23:48:37
|
We work with a number of small businesses here in the US, including
accounting firms, and every single one of them compares the bank
statement because the banks don't always get the check scanned in
properly! So I'm not sure where this "the check is in the mail"
being good enough is coming from. (If anything that phrase tends to
be a bit of dark humor implying that it most definitely is NOT in the
mail. :)
But back to the topic at hand, I think pretty much any business
in any country does in fact have some system of checks and balances
(literally!) to ensure that what the books say matches reality.
Taxation may vary as much as the lawmakers can invent, and so can
payment methodologies and tracking thereof, but at the end of the day
there isn't a business owner out there who doesn't verify that they
really did get that dollar!
Thanks,
Michael
On May 15, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Paul Tammes wrote:
The whole concept of Bank Statements seems European to me, US
citizens use
checks and reconciliation instead iirc.
I think the concept that reconciliation should match the bank statements
like Dieter mentioned is solid and was long overdue.
However, it might take some thinking and reconsidering to get the
basic idea
across to people who are not used to check statements and live with
messages
like ´the check is in the mail´. That way of accounting was part of the
start of the worldwide mess we have right now to begin with. If the
check is
mentioned in the statement, it is in. And can be reconciled with the
statement number and invoice number as unique identifier. If not, we
might
have a bad debt (or mortgage) on our hands.
2009/5/15 Dieter Simader <dsi...@sq...>
> On Fri, 15 May 2009, Hamish Bain wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009, Dieter Simader wrote:
>>> Before applying a patch users should investigate why these
>>> transactions
>>> show up. If it is a bug it will be fixed but if it is simply a user
> error,
>>> well, then fix up your own f'up.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know why you didn't reply to me on your
>> Forum,
> as
>> a 'paid-up' member of SQL-Ledger since I started using it 3-4
>> years ago,
> and
>> tell me I screwed up, and to fix my own f'up. Or else at least
>> make some
>> attempt to see if it might be a bug?
>
> Why should I hunt for a bug, just because you don't get it?
>
> I replied to your request with a detailed explaination of what you
> have to
> do. What more do you need?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
> Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables
> unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine
> for externally facing server and web deployment.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
> _______________________________________________
> sql-ledger-users mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables
unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine
for externally facing server and web deployment.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
_______________________________________________
sql-ledger-users mailing list
sql...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users
|
|
From: <je...@ix...> - 2009-06-01 21:03:53
|
This is a strange situation. We created a purchase order for some product. Today we received the product. I see that our quantity received, has increased by the correct amount, however the value of our inventory has not changed. The PO is currently open. Why would my inventory value not increase? The part looks correctly setup, inventory to the inventory account, income to our sales account, and expense to cost of goods sold expense account. Jeff |
|
From: <la...@cl...> - 2009-06-01 21:14:16
|
probably need to post the vendor invoice to record the AP and inventory. tim > > This is a strange situation. > > We created a purchase order for some product. Today we received the > product. > I see that our quantity received, has increased by the correct amount, > however the value of our inventory has not changed. The PO is currently > open. > > Why would my inventory value not increase? > > > The part looks correctly setup, inventory to the inventory account, income > to our sales account, and expense to cost of goods sold expense account. > > > Jeff > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > OpenSolaris 2009.06 is a cutting edge operating system for enterprises > looking to deploy the next generation of Solaris that includes the latest > innovations from Sun and the OpenSource community. Download a copy and > enjoy capabilities such as Networking, Storage and Virtualization. > Go to: http://p.sf.net/sfu/opensolaris-get > _______________________________________________ > sql-ledger-users mailing list > sql...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sql-ledger-users > |
×
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