When searching by date, this use the movement table. This is not good, because it can match invoice lines, for now adds "movement.is_accountable" in WHERE clause not to select them.

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17320 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

Revise r17313, instead of looking deliveries look in the stock table to know if we have accounting lines related to this organisation, because in the case of multi company accounting, an accounting transaction from another company where we mirror_section would prevent closing the period

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17319 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17318 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17317 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

When creating balance transaction for openning next period, also take into account precision when calculating existing accounts balances

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17316 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17315 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

Better query to get transactions where we are source_section with start_date in range or destination_section with stop_date in range

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17313 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

* take into account the new workflow state name for the Accounting Period workflow.
* init stop date to 31 of december by default

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17312 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17311 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17310 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17309 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

Prevent catalog clear from failing when portal_ids table does not exist. Code structure taken from ZSQLCatalog/SQLCatalog.py:Catalog.clear() .


git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17308 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17307 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17304 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17303 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

Compare a value with null values rather than None. This does not fix testConstraint, but the test is wrong in my opinion.

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17302 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17301 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17300 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17299 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17298 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17297 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17296 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

Use proxy fields to show all possible formats for selected report style in preferences for current logged in user.

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17295 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

but the rendering is still not functionnal (it might be due to a bug in the
scribus version I use)



git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17294 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17293 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17292 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

parentheses... Which is the right format? For now, support both.


git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17291 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17290 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

  the catalog
- the current way of unindexing objects does not work if the uid
  is not provided, so make sure the uid is given


git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17289 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17288 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17287 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17286 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

Using a volatile as local variable is unsafe, since its life span can be shorter than local variable life span. Create the volatile for backward compatibility - even though the expected behaviour differs from reality.


git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17284 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17283 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

It seems that sometimes required versions are specified with parentheses... Which is the right format? For now, support both. Also, remove christophe's ads.

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17282 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17281 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

* Set pricing_interaction_workflow to Immobilisation Line.

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17280 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17279 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

* Set pricing_interaction_workflow to Invoice Line.

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17278 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de

git-svn-id: https://svn.erp5.org/repos/public/erp5/trunk@17277 20353a03-c40f-0410-a6d1-a30d3c3de9de