Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In DATEV, the against account has a meaning. It tries to fit everything into one record:
VAT gets deducted and booked to different accounts automatically. Receivables will be tracked, etc. This approach comes to its limitations when there are multiple tax rates, advance payments, etc. on one invoice.
ERPNext however, books like this:
This is much more flexible, but the against account has no meaning. We just debit or credit individual accounts.
Previously we tried to guess the against account for the DATEV Export. This was achieved by using one payable/receivable account per party, merging all those tables and coalescing through the values.
From discussion on the forum (german) it turned out that a better strategy would be to use a temporary against account for the whole export. In the external system, all GL Entries will be made against this temporary account and it's balance will always be zero. The column "Belegfeld 1" contains the voucher number, tying multiple rows together into one transaction.
Pros:
Cons:
DATEV Settings
Full Export
Payment Entry only
Stock Entry only
Docs: frappe/erpnext_documentation#221