Re: Translation question: "bill" VS "invoice"
Karsten Hilbert <[email protected]> Sun, 31 May 2026 18:08:07 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.medical.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am Sat, May 30, 2026 at 01:59:05AM -0300 schrieb Mar=EDa Scappini: > >That may cause hiccups under some legislations. >=20 > Where I live, the "hiccup" -- if They find out the software I am using > for invoice generation lets me, in any way, duplicate invoices -- > could equal to a huge fine or even jail :-D I will double-check the UI and remove any functionality to edit the invoice ID. > >lost, however, because bill.bill is audited, and thusly > >audit.log_bill still contains a record of the previous > >invoice_id. >=20 > So the audit trail would show what was actually billed, and any > actual attempts at tax fraud would be very easy to tell? Both bill.bill and bill.bill_item are logged. That way it should be possible to reconstruct what was to-be-billed (that is, bill items linked to a bill) at any particular point in time. Cumbersome but possible, yes. I think we need to make extra sure that invoice ids cannot (even manually) be re-used in any way without major intervention by a criminal energy. They are certainly not *regeneratable* as of now but I am not so sure about manually beating things into submission GUI-wise. Karsten =2D-=20 GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6 5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B