The table of total payments does not take into account processes for which the person responsible is no longer an employee

Yes that's right it displays only by employees

This information is not found anywhere in the block. And why such a binding? Now, when an employee is not working, the general statistics for the company are not visible. Can you correct?

I don't see the point in editing Why should other customers see information about laid-off employees?

[quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production wrote: I don't see the point in editing Why do other customers need to see information about laid-off employees? [/quote] It does not matter to whom the processes were assigned, whether the employee was fired or not, the head of the company needs information about all the orders and payments of the company. I can’t even imagine why it might be necessary to look at the statistics of the number of orders for the year and not take into account orders for which the person responsible is no longer working in the company. This is incomplete information. I need to see how many orders and for what amount were completed in just a period, and it doesn’t matter who worked on them. And the table is just called "Table of total payments and number of processes in the specified statuses by periods." And it displays the data in general.

I won't let you change it by default you can modify the option only to take into account even non-employees - it will take 1 hour

not necessarily by default, is it possible to make an option as an investment?

[quote] Farkhshatov Rodion wrote: not necessarily by default, is it possible to make an option as an investment? [/quote] No

Apparently, it is pointless to convey the incorrectness of this functionality, issue an invoice. Blocks Table of total payments and the number of processes in the specified statuses by periods and Table of total payments and the number of processes in the specified statuses. Absolutely all processes and payments should be taken into account, regardless of those responsible. Employee / not an employee, there is / is not responsible.

Paid

[quote] Farkhshatov Rodion wrote: Table of total payments and the number of processes in the specified statuses [/quote] I don't see this setting in this block [quote] Farkhshatov Rodion wrote: is/is not responsible [/quote] if there is no responsible person, will it be taken into account?

[quote] Farkhshatov Rodion wrote: And the table is just called "Table of total payments and number of processes in the specified statuses by periods." And it displays the data in general. [/quote] and here is your screenshot https://ipic.su/img/img7/fs/kiss_85kb.1691076104.png you have a block by periods in the discussion and screenshots

[quote] Farkhshatov Rodion wrote: Apparently, it is pointless to convey the incorrectness of this functionality, issue an invoice. Blocks Table of total payments and the number of processes in the specified statuses by periods and Table of total payments and the number of processes in the specified statuses. Absolutely all processes and payments should be taken into account, regardless of those responsible. Employee / not an employee, there is / is not responsible. [/quote] yes, but when asked to issue an invoice, I wrote for which blocks. In the Table of total amounts of payments and number of processes in the specified statuses section, the same logic is used, processes only for current employees are taken into account?

[quote] Farkhshatov Rodion wrote: yes, but when asked to issue an invoice, I wrote for which blocks. In the Table of total amounts of payments and number of processes in the specified statuses section, the same logic is used, processes only for current employees are taken into account? [/quote] for each block 1h in the original TOR, you clearly indicated which block you need, and evaluated it, then you add other blocks and think that this will not change the assessment? Don't try to fool anyone here.

[quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production wrote: deceive [/quote] Cheating, seriously? [quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production wrote: in the original TOR you clearly indicated which block you need [/quote] I didn’t give any technical specifications at the beginning, but wrote about the problem. I gave my consent to the revision and TK in the last message, where I clearly stated which blocks and how they should work. For some reason, you only saw a request for an invoice, and decided to omit the details. In a good way, you should have reported changes in the assessment, if any, due to new conditions. And in general, this is not a problem for me - separately, separately, if necessary, I will give a request for revision. I'm not arguing or demanding anything if you haven't noticed. But writing unfounded accusations here is too much. Keep your personal opinion to yourself.

[quote] Farkhshatov Rodion wrote: [quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production wrote: deceive [/quote] Cheating, seriously? [quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production wrote: in the original TOR you clearly indicated which block you need [/quote] I didn’t give any technical specifications at the beginning, but wrote about the problem. I gave my consent to the revision and TK in the last message, where I clearly stated which blocks and how they should work. For some reason, you only saw a request for an invoice, and decided to omit the details. In a good way, you should have reported changes in the assessment, if any, due to new conditions. And in general, this is not a problem for me - separately, separately, if necessary, I will give a request for revision. I'm not arguing or demanding anything if you haven't noticed. But writing unfounded accusations here is too much. Keep your personal opinion to yourself. [/quote] I myself will decide where I leave my opinion to myself, and where not. I wish you success!