Consider against_voucher_no when voucher_no is filtered #44533
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…group by consolidated view
Vigneshsekar
reviewed
Dec 5, 2024
|
I couldn't replicate this locally. Is this issue isolated to Journal Entries? |
@ruthra-kumar Yes, In the payment entry, the unallocated amount has referenced itself in against voucher so it'll get passed in this condition, but in Journal entry one row doesn't have the against voucher reference and the other row has it, so the condition is failing and against voucher is not added in the data |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue:
General Ledger does not consider the against voucher type and against voucher when there isn't any grouping
ref: 26554
Solution:
When there isn't any grouping and the voucher is filtered
Group by Voucher (Consolidated)is set tofilters.group_by, so the against_voucher_no is not taken into consideration.I removed the
Group by Voucher (Consolidated)assignment and ignored the opening and closing of the voucherBefore:
After:
Backport needed for v15