03-11-2017, 08:56 PM,
|
|
sync700uk
Member
|
Posts: 18
Threads: 10
Joined: Apr 2016
|
|
Trial balance does not balance
Recently upgraded from 4.12.13 to 4.13.1. Since the upgrade, two issues have appeared
1 - A new GL account created does not list on Trial balance and cannot be deleted since it holds a transaction post
2 - One half of a journal entry has been posted to 'other GL accounts' rather a proper account code according to the log.
Consequently, the TB no longer balances. I have run the repost GL transactions script and the recalculate balances coming forward and neither have worked.
What do we need to do?
|
|
03-15-2017, 10:26 AM,
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2017, 10:39 AM by sync700uk.)
|
|
sync700uk
Member
|
Posts: 18
Threads: 10
Joined: Apr 2016
|
|
RE: Trial balance does not balance
Thanks but account created does not show on the list of accounts that can be authorized. The user is a system administrator so it looks to be a deeper problem
Ok. resolved but suggest this is a bug/needs error trap
New accounts created must be added to list of accounts for the user through the 'user authorized GL accounts' call and not the 'GL account authorized users'.
Think it might be best to automatically add all new accounts created to all users but automatically default to unauthorised except for system administrators so sysdamin has to then go and authorise where necessary
Incidently. Congrats on this feature. Extremely powerful and useful for delegation purposes
|
|
03-17-2017, 01:02 PM,
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2017, 01:02 PM by dalescott.)
|
|
dalescott
Senior Member
|
Posts: 107
Threads: 23
Joined: Sep 2016
|
|
RE: Trial balance does not balance
@sync700uk, if you have a minute, can you say why you find this powerful, and briefly describe what it would allow you to do? Sorry to be such a noob....... Thanks.
http://www.dalescott.net
|
|
03-19-2017, 05:24 AM,
|
|
sync700uk
Member
|
Posts: 18
Threads: 10
Joined: Apr 2016
|
|
RE: Trial balance does not balance
Concur with Falkoner. In my case, I have a accounts administrator being trained on coding purchase orders. I don't want him to have full GL code listing for each PO Only the account codes I have authorized him for to reduce the risk of mis-posting
Also using it to provide half-a-dozen account codes to staff to code their expense claims with. They would be confused and deterred by a long-list of GL codes to pick from
|
|
03-19-2017, 05:49 AM,
|
|
dalescott
Senior Member
|
Posts: 107
Threads: 23
Joined: Sep 2016
|
|
RE: Trial balance does not balance
(03-19-2017, 05:24 AM)sync700uk Wrote: Also using it to provide half-a-dozen account codes to staff to code their expense claims with. They would be confused and deterred by a long-list of GL codes to pick from
I remember being a new engineer and was given a full GL code list and told to figure it out for expense reports and po requests. It was the supervisor's responsibility to catch errors before approving.
http://www.dalescott.net
|
|
03-19-2017, 08:01 AM,
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2017, 08:02 AM by dalescott.)
|
|
dalescott
Senior Member
|
Posts: 107
Threads: 23
Joined: Sep 2016
|
|
RE: Trial balance does not balance
Sorry everyone, my intention wasn't to criticize, I was just sharing a "solution" I had previously encountered. I should have at least <winked> instead of implying that users just have to get it right. <wink>
Warning, potentially pedantic rant coming, .... Of course a system _should_ prevent errors, but my pragmatic side also wants to consider the development cost and risk, how presumably making the product more complicated will affect users in day-to-day operation, if it makes future development more complicated, and what the likelihood and severity of making an error is in the first place - including whether the error will be noticed in the normal course of events (or if it can be tested for), and the cost of an ad hoc fix (assuming it will be possible using the normal UI to correct the error in a way that leaves a visible and understandable audit trail).
IMHO. No inference to webERP is intended or should be implied!
Cheers,
Dale
http://www.dalescott.net
|
|
|