GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 649992
Owner-report aging table is inconsistent with aging reports (due date vs post date)
Last modified: 2018-06-29 22:57:48 UTC
Created attachment 187663 [details] [review] Patches owner report to include due date / post date options in aging. Follow up on bug: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=502066 #502066 called "The aging in business reports should use the due date instead of the post date". In that bug the aging reports were extended to use the due date when reporting overdue in buckets such as Current - 0-30 etc. This created an inconsistency since the owner reports (such as Customer Report) did not report the Current bucket and did not include the option to select Date Posted or Date due. The attached patch patches the owner report to: *Allow a choice between the use of Due Date and Date Posted *Report with the current bucket Some caveats: *I did not do any regression testing, this means that some reporting may be off. *This was only tested for Invoices and thus for the Customer overview (since that was my testset). Looking at the changes, I don't think anything else was touched, but I am not quite sure. Patch against r20615 v 2.4.99 P.S. I am not sure if the Totals column should thus also reflect another number. Please let me know if so, and provide an example dataset.
Created attachment 187664 [details] Test set used to test the changes Just for testing's sake, I'm including my testset based on the input given by Don M. 1) In the billing terms editor, I created a new term "net-15", where bills are due 15 days after the invoice date. 2) I created a new customer and three invoices, all due net-15: Invoice Date Due Date Amount 2010-11-20 2010-12-05 1000 2010-12-10 2010-12-25 2000 2010-12-20 2011-01-04 4000 3) I ran a customer report and a receivables aging report as of 2010-12-30. These reports show: 0-30 days: $6000 31-60 days: 1000 What I would expect to see is: Current: 4000 0-30 days: 3000 (Please not that you always need to change the AR account name in the defaults).
Comment on attachment 187663 [details] [review] Patches owner report to include due date / post date options in aging. seems good to me. Should this also go into the 2.4 branch? Probably yes.
Seems like this would benefit people if it were used in 2.4 as well. Is any change from my side needed to either the bug or the patch? Rgs, Bert
Bug 502066 was fixed before we branched 2.4. So bug 502066 is in 2.4. As this bug really is an addition to that bug, I would agree this needs to go in 2.4 as well @Bert: I don't think you need to change anything, unless your patch wouldn't apply cleanly to the 2.4 branch. I don't remember any changes in that report, so it is unlikely your patch wouldn't apply.
Comment on attachment 187663 [details] [review] Patches owner report to include due date / post date options in aging. trunk r20637 (to be back-ported), thanks! By the way, please create your patches running "svn diff" from the top-level directory so that the patch file contains the full path inside the source code repo. Otherwise, it's unnecessary work for me to find our where in our source tree this particular file is located. Thanks!
I tested this in ver 2.4.6, and confirm that the Receivables Aging, Customer Report, Payables Aging, and Vendor report have been fixed. Thanks!
GnuCash bug tracking has moved to a new Bugzilla host. This bug has been copied to https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=649992. Please update any external references or bookmarks.