It's much more fun, when you can discuss your problems with others...
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
FrontAccounting forum → Posts by MarkAndrew
Is it possible to add a level of confirmation before sending emails from Front.
Some thing to say - Are you Sure - before sending the email?
It would also be nice to have the opportunity to customise the email text as there can be a specific point to communicate around the invoice emailed - at the moment it takes a second email to do this.
Small modification but would add a nice touch to user experience.
Mark
When running a dimension enquiry it is summarized by GL account.
It would really help to have drill down facility to see transaction detail.
This would improve the usefulness of FA for job costing.
thanks Joe.
Will the fix be in next release?
Also a small but confusing thing noted was that on the SBR if there are no transactions for the period the report is run, there is no line that appears on the report to separate one supplier from the next ... a bit confusing so I'll try show an example
Assume SBR is run for period 01.09.14 to 30.09.14
Assume there are 2 suppliers - 1) Property Maintenance and 2) Plumbing Services
Assume Property Maintenance has no transactions in the report period but does have an opening balance
Assume Plumbing Services has transactions in the report period but no opening balance
The SBR will run something like this making it look like one supplier not 2 suppliers.
______________________________________________
Property Maintance 1000 1000
Plumbing Services
1250 1250
______________________________________________
It would be more user friendly to separate the suppliers something like this
______________________________________________
Property Maintance 1000 1000
______________________________________________
Plumbing Services
1250 1250
______________________________________________
Mark
The following anomaly was noted in dash board widgets extension:
The balances reported by widgets show local currency balances based on exchange rates at transaction dates.
Other reports use the latest available exchange rates.
As a result the dashboard widgets don't always agree with balances in other reports
Dashboards should be consistent with the underlying data
Mark
The following bug was noted in FA v21 in the Supplier Balances Report
1. We entered a supplier invoice on 25.12.13 for £1000 at an exchange rate of 18.3150 = ZAR18 315 (local currency)
2. Today, when we run the Supplier Balances Report (SBR) for a date range starting BEFORE the invoice entry date (24.12.13) the SBR converts £1000 to the local currency equivalent at the last available exchange rate in the exchange rate table. So far, all works as expected.
But, when we run the SBR for a date range starting AFTER the invoice entry date (26.12.13) the SBR does not convert the £1000 to home currency, yet the report clearly states that all balances are in home currency. The balance appears as 1000.
CONCLUSION:
The SBR can't be relied on to show correct supplier balances in home currency when run with no currency filter unless the start date selected is on or before the date of the very first supplier invoice entered into the system - which is not practical.
It looks like the logic in the code for looking up the exchange rate is wrong.
Where the start date of the report is after the entry date of the supplier invoice, no exchange rate is applied - which is wrong.
Where the start date of the report is before the entry date of the supplier invoice then the last available exchange rate is used - which is correct.
Whether the start date of the report is before or after the supplier invoice date, the latest available exchange rate should be used.
Mark
Hi
Is it possible to print sales invoices on A5 but rest of reports / docs on A4?
Mark
Thanks Joe.
The check box does the job!
Appreciated
Mark
A trial balance is not usually displayed like it is in FA...like this..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brought Forward This Period Balance
Dr Cr Dr Cr Dr Cr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank 100 50 10 20 110 70
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my experience, it would normally be displayed like something like this...which enables the user to easily see what the net balances are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brought Forward This Period Balance
Dr Cr Dr Cr Dr Cr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank 50 10 40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A change like this might improve user experience. As it stands, the tb is only useful if it's exported to Excel and dr and cr balances are netted off.
Mark
Tx Joe!
It works well ! That's great!
Will it be on the 2.3.22 version ?
I buy goods from a supplier that I do not regularly use and that I don't want to set up as a supplier in the system.
If I want to claim the VAT on the purchase I need to enter 2 lines in Bank Payments as follows:
GL Printing and Stationery 1 000
GL Input VAT 150
Total Payment 1 150
The transaction appears on the Tax report, but it omits the Payee's name (Field for Pay to the Order of in the bank payment data entry screen)
Is it possible to make this change to get a better Tax report?
Mark
Hi Joe
I tested the fix for negative stock.
It works correctly now, except for the error message....which does not show the correct qty on hand
Here is my test data:
1. 25.8.14 purchased 1000 units
2. 25.8.14 sold 500 units leaving a balance of 500 units
3. 20.9.14 sold 100 units leaving a balance of 400 units
4. 26.8.14 back dated a sale of 500 units
As expected, I could not process the sale of 500 units, but the error message below is incorrect.
The delivery cannot be processed because there is an insufficient quantity for item: testneg - testneg - Quantity On Hand = 500
The qty on hand is 400, not 500.
It looks like the routine for checking stock levels used by the error message needs to be updated from historical levels on 25.8.14 to actual stock levels at 26.8.14 (current date).
Mark
thanks Joe.
Glad to help in some way.
Hi Joe
Thanks for that.
For the Customer Aged Analysis, the terminology "Show Also Allocated" is not easy to understand.
If I choose "Yes" then what happens is that only customer payments to the report date are reflected on the customer aged analysis. Which is what I would expect.
If I choose "No" then what happens is that all customer payments until "today" are reflected on the customer aged analysis even if they were made after the report date. The balances at the reporting date are therefore wrong. The report becomes a mixture of sales to the reporting date and receipts till today's date. There should not be an option to generate a wrong report.
It would be less confusing if the option "show also allocated" was set to a default "yes" for the aged analysis and removed from the report options. In such a case, the aged analysis can** agree to the customer control account in the GL regardless of the reporting date. Which is very important for an accountant or auditor.
This little change would improve the user experience - making Front more user friendly.
**can agree - if there are no general journals passed direct to the customer control account as these do not reflect in individual customer accounts - it would be great if they could - and if any foreign currency variances have been updated in the system through the revaluation of foreign currency option - which is still necessary to run even you select automatic revaluation of foreign currency accounts in company set up.
Mark
thanks Joe.
Appreciated!
Will this fix go to the next release and I can download then?
Mark
The customer aged analysis (CAA) total and the customer balance report (CBR) total does not balance to the debtors control account in the general ledger when running these reports for past dates.
When we run a report for past dates, if an invoice has been paid after the past reporting date the invoice will not show as outstanding on the CAA and CBR.
Example if on 18 Sept 2014 I run the CAA and CBR as at 30 June 2014 I will see the following
CBR - charges and credits will be correct at the reporting date, but the allocated column and the outstanding column will show transactions/balance up to today's date.
CAA - an invoice outstanding at 30 June 2014, but paid on 17 Sept 2014 will not appear as outstanding on the CAA if I run the report for 30 June 2014 on 18 September 2014.
As a result the CAA and CBR report meaningless/misleading results for past dates.
A small bug noticed:
When I run the supplier aged analysis in foreign currency, the report has a grand total at the end.
However, it's the numerical total of different currencies and is meaningless.
Eg $100 + £100 = total 200
Would be better to exclude the total on supplier aged analysis and customer aged analysis when run in forex.
Mark
Hi Joe!
It works.
The results were as expected for the same test data as before.
The Inventory Valuation Report reported correct average costs when run for past dates and the Costed Inventory Movement Report reflected correct average unit costs for opening stock, purchases and closing stock.
Thank you very much!
Mark
thx Joe
will download and test asap
Mark
Hi Joe
The first time tested we down loaded
items_trans_db.inc 3.21 kb,
Attachment icon rep301.php1 6.53 kb,
Attachment icon rep308.php1 8.26 kb
The second time we tested we down loaded
rep301.php1 7.41 kb
rep308.php1 9.4 kb
Should we have down loaded
items_trans_db.inc 3.21 kb
for the second test too?
Mark
I re-tested the latest 2 fixes using the following test data:
1. I created a new inventory item on 9.9.14 (the day I created the item)
2. I purchased 1 unit for 100 + VAT on 9.9.14 (the first invoice in the pile to capture)
3. I purchased 1 unit for 50 + vat on 31.8.14 (the second invoice in the pile to capture)
The results showed errors as documented below.
......................................................................................................................
A)The results I expect to see in the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see 1 unit x 50 unit cost = 50 total value
b) As at 9.9.14 I should see 2 unit x 75 unit cost = 150 total value
The results I actually see in the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I see 1 unit x 75 unit cost = 75 total value
b) As at 9.9.14 I see 2 unit x 75 unit cost = 150 total value
Conclusion: The IVR qty is correct at both test dates, the IRV unit cost is wrong for past dates
..............................................................................................................................................
B)The results I expect to see in the Costed Inventory Movement Report (CIMR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
0 0 0 1 50 50 0 0 0 1 50 50
b) As at 9.9.14 I should see
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
1 50 50 1 100 100 0 0 0 2 75 150
The results I actually see in the Costed Inventory Movement Account are:
a) As at 31.8.14
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
0 0 0 1 75 75 0 0 0 1 75 75
b) As at 9.9.14
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
1 75 75 1 125 125 0 0 0 2 100 200
Conclusion: The CIMR qty is correct at both test dates, the IRV unit cost is wrong at both test dates.
Issue to Resolve:
The IVR + CIMR do not respect the user's reporting date when costing opening stock. They take latest average cost
The calculation of average cost by FA for the data used is wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I then tested them using the following test data:
1. I created a new inventory item on 9.9.14
2. I purchased 1 unit for 50 + vat on 31.8.14
3. I purchased 1 unit for 100 + VAT on 9.9.14 (the date order is different to the first set of test data)
....................................................................................................................................................................
A)The results I expect to see in the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see 1 unit x 50 unit cost = 50 total value
b) As at 5.9.14 I should see 2 unit x 75 unit cost = 150 total value
The results I actually see in the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I see 1 unit x 75 unit cost = 75 total value
b) As at 5.9.14 I see 2 unit x 75 unit cost = 150 total value
Conclusion: The IVR qty is correct at both test dates, the IRV unit cost is wrong at 31.8.14 and correct at 9.9.14
....................................................................................................................................................................
B)The results I expect to see in the Costed Inventory Movement Report (CIMR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
0 0 0 1 50 50 0 0 0 1 50 50
b) As at 5.9.14 I should see
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
1 50 50 1 100 100 0 0 0 2 75 150
The results I actually see in the Costed Inventory Movement Account are:
a) As at 31.8.14
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
0 0 0 1 50 50 0 0 0 1 50 50
b) As at 5.9.14
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
1 50 50 1 100 100 0 0 0 2 75 150
Conclusion: The CIMR qty and unit cost is correct at both test dates.
Thanks Joe
Will down load and test asap and report back to you as you ask.
Hi Joe
We installed your fixes..
Attachment icon items_trans_db.inc 3.21 kb, 1 downloads since 2014-09-04
Attachment icon rep301.php1 6.53 kb, 1 downloads since 2014-09-04
Attachment icon rep308.php1 8.26 kb, 1 downloads since 2014-09-04
I tested them using the following test data:
1. I created a new inventory item on 5.9.14
2. I purchased 1 unit for 100 + VAT on 5.9.14
3. I purchased 1 unit for 50 + vat on 31.8.14
The results showed errors as documented below.
......................................................................................................................
A)The results I expect to see in the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see 1 unit x 50 unit cost = 50 total value
b) As at 5.9.14 I should see 2 unit x 75 unit cost = 150 total value
The results I actually see in the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see 1 unit x 75 unit cost = 75 total value
b) As at 5.9.14 I should see 2 unit x 87.50 unit cost = 175 total value
Conclusion: The IVR qty is correct at both test dates, the IRV unit cost is wrong at both test dates
..............................................................................................................................................
B)The results I expect to see in the Costed Inventory Movement Report (CIMR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
0 0 0 1 50 50 0 0 0 1 50 50
b) As at 5.9.14 I should see
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
1 50 50 1 100 100 0 0 0 2 75 150
The results I actually see in the Costed Inventory Movement Account are:
a) As at 31.8.14
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
0 0 0 1 75 75 0 0 0 1 75 75
b) As at 5.9.14
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
1 75 75 1 100 100 0 0 0 2 87.5 175
Conclusion: The CIMR qty is correct at both test dates, the IRV unit cost is wrong at both test dates.
Issue to Resolve:
The IVR + CIMR do not respect the user's reporting date when costing opening stock. They takes latest average cost
The calculation of average cost by FA for the data used is wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I then tested them using the following test data:
1. I created a new inventory item on 5.9.14
2. I purchased 1 unit for 50 + vat on 31.8.14
3. I purchased 1 unit for 100 + VAT on 5.9.14 (the date order is different to the first set of test data)
....................................................................................................................................................................
A)The results I expect to see in the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see 1 unit x 50 unit cost = 50 total value
b) As at 5.9.14 I should see 2 unit x 75 unit cost = 150 total value
The results I actually see in the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see 1 unit x 50 unit cost = 50 total value
b) As at 5.9.14 I should see 2 unit x 62.50 unit cost = 125 total value
Conclusion: The IVR qty is correct at both test dates, the IRV unit cost is correct at 31.8.14, but wrong at 5.9.14
....................................................................................................................................................................
B)The results I expect to see in the Costed Inventory Movement Report (CIMR) are:
a) As at 31.8.14 I should see
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
0 0 0 1 50 50 0 0 0 1 50 50
b) As at 5.9.14 I should see
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
1 50 50 1 100 100 0 0 0 2 75 150
The results I actually see in the Costed Inventory Movement Account are:
a) As at 31.8.14
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
0 0 0 1 50 50 0 0 0 1 50 50
b) As at 5.9.14
Open Stock Stock In Delivery Closing Stock
Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value Qty Rate Value
1 75 75 1 75 75 0 0 0 2 62.50 125
Conclusion: The CIMR qty is correct at both test dates, the IRV unit cost is correct and 31.8.14 but wrong at 9.5.14.
...............................................................................................................................................................
Thanks Joe
Will wait for updates.
Appreciated.
Mark
Hi Joe
The Costed Inventory Movement Report (CIMR) does not work properly either.
At least it did not last time I checked - it values closing stock at the latest average cost and not the historic average cost at the date the report is run for. This is the same problem the Inventory Valuation Report (IVR) has.
Both reports need to be able to run at any date the user needs and both reports should value stock at the historic average costs for the chosen date.
The CIMR, if it was correct, could be substituted for the IVR, but it would be a pity to loose the IVR.
Preventing the user from running the IVR for historical dates is not a good solution for Front. Fixing both the IVR and CIMR to value stock correctly at any date the user needs is a good solution.
Mark
FrontAccounting forum → Posts by MarkAndrew
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 4 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.