how to group items in inventory kit form NON inventory items:
NON inventory items:
all above should be grouped in one ITEM called "“INSTALLATION”
You cannot. Inventory kits are only shortcuts that allow you to sell things that you stock separately as a single item. But everything must be an inventory item. All costs will be posted to Inventory - cost. Read the Guide: https://www.manager.io/guides/9629.
The other things you want to add will all be posted to different accounts. Setting them up as non-inventory items is as streamlined as you can get.
looking at your given instruction, since all item should be in the invertory it possible for some items to leave the sale cost empty ? kindly advice
Yes, you can sell something for zero if you want. But don’t think about building inventory kits from zero-cost items that are not real inventory. That will seriously interfere with a lot of things going on in the program. It will likely also lead you into trouble with auditors. They don’t like imaginary inventory sales.
i will make same entries with selling cost and share with you, for better understanding,
Why ? If you create Lunch as an Inventory item and put that item into an Inventory Kit
Then you will end up with a negative Lunch inventory value as Lunch was never an Inventory purchase
However, if you used (as an alternative) a Production Order which allows for both Inventory Items as well as Non Inventory Items to create the Installation “Inventory Item”
Then on the Sales Invoice you would select the Installation “Inventory Item”. Note: if you enter values for the Non Inventory Items these will show as cost recovery entries within the P&L.
Anyhow, trial it out in a test business to see if it suits.
thanks Brucanna i should give it a try, will revert back to you
@ishtiaq.omer, you should be aware that while @Brucanna’s approach will work, it involves twice as many transactions for each installation. First, you must enter the production order to create a new, imaginary “installation inventory item” in your inventory. Then you must create the sales invoice or receipt to sell the newly created item. This must be repeated every time you make an installation.
Would it not be easier to define typical installation costs as non-inventory items (something you would do only once) and add them directly to the sales invoice or receipt? That would take only a few seconds longer than creating a sales document with the imaginary installation inventory item. And you would completely eliminate the production order entry.
@Tut, if you had read the opening post it clearly states “all above should be grouped in one ITEM called “INSTALLATION””. Your supposedly easier non-inventory items approach would create the opposite effect where there would be multiple items listed on the Sales Invoice which is exactly what @ishtiaq.omer didn’t want.
Anyhow, your “flawed” response was not unexpected as virtually very time I provide a valid solution to a user you seem to have an overwhelming urge to nit pick through it, and this is the umpteenth time that this has been pointed out.
Well, @Brucanna, I definitely did read the opening post. The user asked if something could be done, but it could not within the user’s own parameters. So I offered the simplest approach to get as close to what was desired as possible. There was no further response from the user for four weeks, so the question seemed to have been satisfactorily resolved.
My solution was not “flawed,” as you were apparently delighted to incorrectly point out. It was a perfectly valid application of program features as they were meant to be used. If you want to consider anything flawed, look at your advice, which would involve mischaracterizing services as inventory items and require twice as many transactions every time.
As expected you just don’t get it, your conduct in post 8 is completely and utterly unacceptable so lets put it more simplistically - the topic should contain this:
Post 1 - User A poses a question
Post 2 - User B provides a response
Post 3 to 5 - User A & B discuss that response
Post 6 - User C provides a response
Post 7 - User A acknowledges that response
Here the topic’s posts should have finished, but it doesn’t if you note that:
User B’s response was respected, it wasn’t attacked by other users.
User C’s response wasn’t respected, in Post 8 it was attacked, nit picked by User B.
User B, yourself Tut, has no right to personally attack / nit pick another user’s post just because you personally disagree with their response, nor should you be promoting your response as being superior. It’s entirely up to User A to evaluate the responses.
Your role as moderator doesn’t extend to exercising a judge and jury mentality over user responses. In fact, to attack / put down other user responses as you do is both a contradiction of and unethical conduct of being a moderator. But I am guessing this is all wasted effort.