Comments on: Double Entry Accounting in Rails http://www.cuppadev.co.uk/dev/double-entry-accounting-in-rails/ Cuppalicious coding! Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:37:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Artificial http://www.cuppadev.co.uk/dev/double-entry-accounting-in-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1132 Artificial Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:25:17 +0000 http://crm.cuppadev.co.uk/?p=133#comment-1132 the approach i liked the best was the one mentioned in the article. It made the most sense, and wasn’t needlessly complicated. So i decided to implement it the approach i liked the best was the one mentioned in the article. It made the most sense, and wasn’t needlessly complicated. So i decided to implement it

]]> By: ratio analysis http://www.cuppadev.co.uk/dev/double-entry-accounting-in-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-949 ratio analysis Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:25:17 +0000 http://crm.cuppadev.co.uk/?p=133#comment-949 the approach i liked the best was the one mentioned in the article. It made the most sense, and wasn’t needlessly complicated. So i decided to implement it the approach i liked the best was the one mentioned in the article. It made the most sense, and wasn’t needlessly complicated. So i decided to implement it

]]> By: jamesu http://www.cuppadev.co.uk/dev/double-entry-accounting-in-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-942 jamesu Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:32:11 +0000 http://crm.cuppadev.co.uk/?p=133#comment-942 Haha Haha

]]> By: steveluscher http://www.cuppadev.co.uk/dev/double-entry-accounting-in-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-941 steveluscher Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:28:43 +0000 http://crm.cuppadev.co.uk/?p=133#comment-941 I'm rather looking forward to the post "Double Entry Accounting with Invoicing in Rails." I'm rather looking forward to the post “Double Entry Accounting with Invoicing in Rails.”

]]> By: James Urquhart http://www.cuppadev.co.uk/dev/double-entry-accounting-in-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-138 James Urquhart Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:14:34 +0000 http://crm.cuppadev.co.uk/?p=133#comment-138 John, A Journal binds together several Posting's. Typically you'd have one per full account transaction - e.g. DEBIT Bank 100, CREDIT Revenue 100 could be linked to a single journal of the type "Deposit". In theory it makes it easy to track complex transactions which consist of transfers to/from multiple accounts. The linked article does indeed make Journals a bit confusing by referring to them by letters (a,b,c,d). Instead you should just refer to them by key number (1,2,3,4) and the whole thing becomes much more clearer. My above example could be recorded in the POSTINGS table as follows (assuming Bank == 100 and Revenue == 50): Id,Account Id,Journal Id,Asset Type,Amount 1,100,1,£,100 2,50,1,£,-100 100 + -100 == 0, thus satisfying the requirements in the article. Hope that helps. :) John,

A Journal binds together several Posting’s. Typically you’d have one per full account transaction – e.g. DEBIT Bank 100, CREDIT Revenue 100 could be linked to a single journal of the type “Deposit”. In theory it makes it easy to track complex transactions which consist of transfers to/from multiple accounts.

The linked article does indeed make Journals a bit confusing by referring to them by letters (a,b,c,d). Instead you should just refer to them by key number (1,2,3,4) and the whole thing becomes much more clearer.

My above example could be recorded in the POSTINGS table as follows (assuming Bank == 100 and Revenue == 50):

Id,Account Id,Journal Id,Asset Type,Amount
1,100,1,£,100
2,50,1,£,-100

100 + -100 == 0, thus satisfying the requirements in the article.

Hope that helps. :)

]]> By: john http://www.cuppadev.co.uk/dev/double-entry-accounting-in-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-137 john Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:03:04 +0000 http://crm.cuppadev.co.uk/?p=133#comment-137 What I don't understand is the journal table. It looks like a simple lookup table. Why is so much ephasis placed on it in the article you reference (first one.) It says: I.e. all POSTING entries associated with the JOURNAL entry must be successfully completed or none must be completed. The numerical sum of all POSTING entries associated with a JOURNAL entry must also equal zero What's that mean? If you look at the example table entries is just has a, b, c, d for the type. Thanks for the article. What I don’t understand is the journal table. It looks like a simple lookup table. Why is so much ephasis placed on it in the article you reference (first one.) It says:

I.e. all POSTING entries associated with the JOURNAL entry must be successfully completed or none must be completed. The numerical sum of all POSTING entries associated with a JOURNAL entry must also equal zero

What’s that mean? If you look at the example table entries is just has a, b, c, d for the type.

Thanks for the article.

]]>