But the user has no way of generating this ID for a currency, making the Batch Create function useless.
I previously reported the difficulty of using Batch Update without a guide to which currencies matched which hex IDs, but that was deemed not to be a bug.
I don’t consider this to be a bug. It’s “as designed” because there are many batch create operations where 32 hex-character ID is required. For example, when batch creating customers, there is a field for custom control account and that can also accepts 32 hex-character ID. The same goes for inventory items where there is a column for default tax code, tracking code, income account etc.
I agree this needs an improvement but it’s not a bug. For now, the only way to figure out which 32 hex-character ID represents given currency is to create exchange rate manually, do batch update to see what is the currency ID, then use that ID in batch create operation. Is it cumbersome? Yes. But it’s not a bug. So I’m moving it into ideas category.
So, I’m trying to understand if I’m missing something. Why exactly is it even considered an idea/improvement and not part of the function being advertised? Why do you even consider the feature complete if it requires the user to extract some hash from somewhere — how does it even make sense?
But most importantly, is not it faster to just implement “column name to hash id” translation rather than spending any time on answering in numerous threads/request regarding this issue. I should be missing something if this thing really requires discussion and threads in a forum and cannot be just implemented by default in some “few hours”. If there is no exact currency name match, just fail the parsing and show an error, that simple.
The problem is, the feature is advertised and is available for the end user, but then it simply does not work and requires some hash extraction from somewhere. But in the user world it just sounds absurd, or, more politely, just weird. It is not a sophisticated logic to be programmed out there, no? Come one guys why so much discussion around such an obvious thing. Please.
@antonphp I hope that you realize that you are replying to a 6 years old topic. I think @Ealfardan should not have split the topic 7 hours ago but just close it.