Is this possible to do batch create with Code instead of key?
Batch Create is very difficult when we use custom control account.
If, by “key,” you mean the UUIDs for various entries, no. Code is just another variable, like item name, tax code, or unit price. It does not identify a record in a database. It is a part of the record you are creating.
yes, batch create by UUIDs is very difficult for user
it will be easy for user to import by Name or Code
last 2 years Lubos promised, he is improving on that
but till now no improvement
I couldn’t find old post
Using code will be very nice because then we can have have two accounts with the same name
Do not misunderstand, @Ealfardan. You can include a code when using Batch Create for any type of record that allows a code. You just cannot use a code in place of a UUID when a record requires a UUID.
For example, inventory items can have item codes. You can Batch Create inventory items and include codes for new items. But they also require UUIDs for starting balance quantity inventory locations. Those UUIDs are necessary, and you cannot substitute a code for them or in any way derive the inventory locations for starting balance quantities from item codes.
I get what you say, but Lubos promised to give an alternative for UUIDs when doing batch operations, namely: name.
I suggested that code is a better alternative for name because I just don’t think the name is suitable because it’s not unique by nature.
You can have a couple of customers with the same name like John Smith and I don’t want their receipts to have silly names like John Smith 69 or something like that. That doesn’t look professional to me.
I understand what you are saying, @Ealfardan. But it is unrelated to the original question. For what it is worth, you can also have duplicate codes. Some users do not use the code field to differentiate between customers, as an example, but to group them. So every customer in the northern region might have the code N. The point is that both code and name are variables, not identifiers. So you cannot use them for Batch Create. Where UUIDs are used, you must use them.
The tantalizing promise of plain-language variables was for things like tax codes and currencies, where both sub ledger definitions and transactions now require UUIDs. But those things are very limited in scope. A VAT 10% tax code should be identifiable, because you will only have one. Likewise, the Euro is the Euro. But, as you say, there could be dozens of John Smiths. You may have noticed that in situations where it doesn’t matter (no connection to other parts of the database), a customer name can be plain language. When it comes to batch operations involving accounts receivable, though, your sub ledger needs to be identified with a UUID.
How is it? This is the original question:
And somewhere somebody mentioned the developer’s promise of substituting names for UUID. And I just pointed out that codes are better than names (despite both not required to be unique) since I can change my own codes but I can’t change other peoples’ names.
That aside, I am on the same page with you, in fact I don’t have a problem with UUIDs, at all, but I cannot oppose this idea because this is what most users want. I just don’t want manager to force unique names, that’s all.