@Steven-Adaxa - sorry that maybe my wording maybe was unclear.

This development is approved and we agreed with @Deepak Pansheriya to move ahead and I advised a way to do it keeping backward compatibility (avoid a manual migration in the middle), it must work without too much hassle.

My last answer was about how we have configured in one of our systems (wrong probably, but we don’t want to be forced to stop a migration to configure stuff manually for something that we don’t need to use - and that can be the case for many others in the community that are small implementations). But that answer was not intended to stop the development of this ticket, just to clarify that there is a discovered migration gap, and that there is a way to do it keeping the current systems working.

Regards,

Carlos Ruiz

@Carlos Ruiz Thanks. We will continue with keeping bank.

I would keep what we already agreed because of the migration problem.

I reviewed our configuration, and we have the accounts properly set in AP or AR, and we have split multiple accounts inside, one per bank.

So, could be that what we did is not the best accounting wise, but that’s how is configured and that makes the migration path to release 11 complicated if we force the change.

I insist that we don’t need this change, and have no plans to use it, we don’t have the need and can happily stick to what we have currently.

This was configured many years ago so I don’t know why the accountant did it that way. There can be an argument to have different accounts per bank in the unallocated AP/AR, and is about the lack of bank dimension there: in the accounting fact we can know the BP directly but we can’t know which bank is related to that unallocated record, splitting the accounts makes that information visible.

@Steven-Adaxa Thanks for clarification.

@Carlos Ruiz so with this clarification from Steven, What do you suggest?

1. Should we keep configuration on Bank account and customer account both?

2. If we are dropping configuration from Bank account, should we rename column or keep same name?

@Carlos Ruiz

in case i missed some part of this discussion ..

having a bank in transit account for each bank account is best practice… the best place to record what account is used for the bank-in-transit is logically in the bank account set-up.

The unallocated payments account is linked more to the BP (or BP Group).

If I have $2M of trade debtors and $1M of Intercompany debtors, I will show those figures in different places in the balance sheet. If there is $500K of unallocated payments it is going to reduce either the $2M or the $1M (or both) … if the whole $500K is in a single GL account (where it would be if you pick up the unallocated account from the bank context) then you can not easily net off from the $2M and/or $1M figure. That is why it makes sense that the Unallocated Payment account be set in the BP/BP Group rather than in the bank.

The above is why I think the change that is being proposed is really correction of a logical error inherited from Compiere and is more that just supporting a preference.

I cant comment on any migration difficulty issues.

regards

steven