Skip to content

Consider direct vendor-to-receipt relationship (deferred) #243

Description

@daveharmswebdev

Summary

During manual testing of receipt processing, the question arose: should receipts have a direct relationship to vendors, or is the indirect linkage through work orders sufficient?

Currently there is no vendor field on receipts. The only path to associate a vendor with a receipt is indirectly: receipt → work order → vendor.

Discussion

Arguments for keeping indirect-only (via work order):

  • Simpler data model — no new FK on receipts table
  • Enforces process discipline: every expense has context through a work order
  • Avoids multiple paths to the same outcome
  • Easier reporting and data reasoning

Arguments for adding direct vendor-on-receipt:

  • Not every receipt originates from a work order (supply runs, one-off purchases)
  • Users may think in terms of "I paid this vendor" not "I paid this work order"
  • Enables direct querying: "show me everything I've paid Vendor X"

Decision

Deferred. The indirect path through work orders covers the primary use case. No action until beta testers surface a need for direct vendor-receipt linkage.

This issue exists to document that the relationship was considered and intentionally deferred — not overlooked.

Origin

Discovered while executing TC-REC-008 (Inline Vendor Creation during receipt processing) — that test case describes a feature that does not exist and should be reviewed.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementNew feature or request

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions