Error editing (updating) Account Groups in 2.3 CVS (Page 1 of 2)

CVS unstable (2.3 CVS) is updated. Affected files:

/gl/includes/db/gl_db_account_types.inc
/gl/manage/gl_account_classes.php
/gl/manage/gl_account_types.php
/includes/ui/ui_lists.inc

Thanks for reporting this.

/Joe

It is the zeros that are causing the problems. You can either change your groups one by one by editing them and select None for parent and save again. Or you can use phpMyAdmin and change all the 0 in parents to an empty string.
Or you can use this SQL for fixing this.

UPDATE `0_chart_types` SET parent='' WHERE parent='0' OR parent='-1';

After that, you can again use 0 as a parent if there is such a group.

This SQL is going to be part of alter2.3.sql when upgrading in a while.

/Joe

This was related to the following expressing in php:
if ("00" == "0")

This will return true in php. I have now used strcmp instead for comparing the strings in the file /gl/manage/gl_account_types.php, but there is still a problem when setting the correct type in the listbox (for parent). I will have to discuss this with Janusz.
In the meantime you can pick up the latest revision in the CVS unstable.

/Joe

Janusz has how fixed the combox group order. I have tested further on the subject and fixed a couple of other minor errors. Now the types is working as intended.

Please update your CVS unstable. The files affected are:
/includes/ui/ui_lists.inc
/gl/includes/db/gl_db_account_types.inc
/gl/manage/gl_account_types.php

/Joe

It seems I have a problem with a screenshot attachment. Another try...

Doesn't work... Is it not possible to attach a JPG screenshot?

A try with zipped one...  Doesn't work. :-(

OK, no screenshot...

I have to type it:

my groups are:
0     - level 1 - TEST
00   - level 2 - TEST1
000 - level 3 - TEST1-1
001 - level 3 - TEST1-2
01   - level 2 - TEST2
010 - level 3 - TEST2-1
011 - level 2 - TEST2-2
1     - Current Assets
2     - Inventory Assets
...

which are listed as:
None
Current Assests
level 3 - TEST1-2
level 3 - TEST2-1
level 2 - TEST2
level 3 - TEST1-1
level 2 - TEST1
level 1 - TEST
level 3 - TEST2-2
Inventory Assets
...

None is OK, but 0 should be in front of 1 (both are Assets...), or?

And, 0 should be followed by 00, 000, 001, 01, 010, 111 by my opinion. Imagine you have about 25 groups or more of the same type, all mixed (not sorted...) and with quite similar names... If they are ordered as in COA, it would be much easier to find the right one.

And, what is the reason that groups are ordered by class type? I mean, if the national chart of account is not sorted this way, why not to allow it to be matched? Isn't it why IDs are there for - to manage the sort order with them? It can be by class types or not, as one desires. Wouldn't it be better this way (it can suit anyone...)?

Yes, I've checked - it is the same (and, I've just updated the whole CVS tree again, no changes...).

Maybe the reason could be that you've entered the data in the order (as it should be)? I can not imagine what would be different, but for sure on my system it is as described above (a pitty that I can not attach a screenshot...).

I am getting the unstable branch - this should be OK, or? I see some updates every day, and "FrontAccounting 2.3 CVS (m7) - Theme: default - " is reported (at the moment: "Version 2.3 CVS (m7) Build 25.03.2010").

Hi Joe,

it is default empty installation. I've set CVS version just to test this feature, as it is very important to me (otherwise, I am evaluating 2.2.7 version).

So, the only difference is (copied from backup):

### Data of table `0_chart_types` ###
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('1', 'Current Assets', '1', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('2', 'Inventory Assets', '1', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('3', 'Capital Assets', '1', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('4', 'Current Liabilities', '2', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('5', 'Long Term Liabilities', '2', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('6', 'Share Capital', '2', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('7', 'Retained Earnings', '2', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('8', 'Sales Revenue', '3', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('9', 'Other Revenue', '3', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('10', 'Cost of Goods Sold', '4', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('11', 'Payroll Expenses', '4', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('12', 'General & Administrative expenses', '4', '-1', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('0', 'level 1 - TEST', '1', '', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('00', 'level 2 - TEST1', '1', '0', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('000', 'level 3 - TEST1-1', '1', '00', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('01', 'level 2 - TEST2', '1', '0', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('010', 'level 3 - TEST2-1', '1', '01', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('001', 'level 3 - TEST1-2', '1', '00', '0');
INSERT INTO `0_chart_types` VALUES ('011', 'level 3 - TEST2-2', '1', '01', '0');

Up to Administrative expenses (12) it is a default, the rest is everything I've added. If there is a need, I can send you a complete backup and screenshot, but it was easier to simply copy/paste an extract from a backup (just made for this purpose) here...

This has now been fixed in CVS unstable. Affected file /includes/ui/ui_lists.inc.

You can download it here:

/Joe

joe,

thank you. This is resolved now, dropdown list is properly ordered.

I've found another weirdness. After adding a group:
ID: 13
Name: TEST 3
Subgroup Of: None
Class Type: Assets

I've found it listed between groups 1 ("Current Assets") and 2 ("Inventory Assets"). Shouldn't it be listed after 3 ("Capital Assets"), since it is not a subgroup of 1?

Otherwise, we could simply say sublevels are automatic (10 is a subgroup of 1, 100 is a subgroup if 10 etc.). But, if we accept more than 10 (ID 0 - 9) level 1 groups (as now 10, 11 and 12 are...), they should be ordered as if they are integers, or? Otherwise, the ordering is quite confusing (like in good old DOS and older Win$ versions, with dir command).

Also my another question seems to be overlooked, altough not so unimportant as it may look. Imagine I change (from the situation as in my previous post) the group 001 to class type "Liabilities" now. It will fall down to the position after group 3 ("Capital Assets"), being the first one among "Liabilities" groups (altough being a subgroup of 01, listed in another / totally different position). If there are many account groups (doesn't fit in just one screen), this can be not only quite annoying, but also confusing (one may think some groups or subgroups doesn't exist, would try to create them, get an error...). I think all groups should be listed by the ID order, no matter what class type they are. If I want all assets to be listed first, liabilities after etc., I can change IDs and I have such an order. Why to insist on so strange ordering (without at least giving us an option to disable it / to order by ID only)?

joe,

I understand this is the way it works...

I just don't uderstand how should 13 be between 1 and 2, if it is on the same level. 13 is higher than 2, or? ;-)

I think that within the same level IDs should be compared as numbers, not strings (where 13 comes before 2, as 1 is lower than 2...). Sublevels are something else, as it is common practice in accounting to add digits on the right side...

And, I don't understand your suggestion to rearrange group_id - to achieve what? I can do whatever I want with IDs, they will still be ordered by class ID first (what I don't like). If you think this is how it should be (without changing it, or give us an option to disable / change that), I will have to patch my code (probably just one SQL to be edited or so - haven't take a look yet). Altough I hate to do that (unless really necessary), it should make us all happy...