Reporting|Debtors screen/statement mismatch

The CSH text at http://www.openvpms.org/documentation/csh/1.9/reporting/debtor says:

for month (or accounting period) end processingfor debtor management

  • set the Statement Date to the end of the period (eg end of previous month)

 

This is quite logical (ie if we are trying to generate a statement for May 2017, we should set the date to 31/5/2017). However, if there is a finalised transaction on the statement date day (31/5/17 in the above case), then although the statement that is printed is correct and includes the 31/5/17 invoice, the screen display and the output from the report button do not include the 31/5/17 invoice.

ie the screen shows:

But Mr X's statement includes the $1000 invoice on 31/5/17 and shows his balance as $57,302

If we shift the statement date to 1/6/17 we get:

Here is the tail end of the customer's running balance showing the 31/5/17 invoice:

So the bug is: Screen display and report output does not match statement because they do not include finalised transactions on the statement date whereas the statement does.

Suggested fix - make screen display and report include transactions of the statement date, and also update the CSH text to reflect the change in behaviour (currently there are two notes saying

  • Note that the resulting statement will show transactions from the Opening Balance transaction prior to the specified statement date up to the specified statement date.

 

Note that the special archetype CUSTOMER_BALANCE used by the Customer Account balance report (aka the Debtors Report) does not include the statement date [see http://www.openvpms.org/documentation/csh/1.9/reference/reportFields]. If it did, this could be displayed on the report.

Finally, the system in use is 1.9.2 Snapshot 7475

Regards, Tim G

PS - Tim A - yell if you want me to create the Jira

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Reporting|Debtors screen/statement mismatch

Yes please

Syndicate content