sorry for late response. UCRM never invoice a given period twice. If you delete an invoice for a period, it's supposed you know what you are doing and you will handle this on your own.
(There could be several issues if the system does it automatically. E.g. the billing settings might be completely different during the first invoicing and during the re-invoicing)
However, you always recreate the invoice manually, or you can push the service's parameter "Last invoiced day" into the past (by one or more billing periods). Then, the periods starting from this day would be invoiced.
By all means, what you describe is the expected behavior.
My question has to do with the invoice number (the consecutive).
- Invoices 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are created.
- For whatever reason... invoice 2 is deleted.
- A week later a new invoice is created (manually or automatically).
- The system SHOULD assign number 2... not number 6... because there is a gap in the consecutive.
Saturday - last edited Saturday
Gap reutilization is a perfectly valid requirement.
Most invoicing software includes a "gap filler" algorithm because the invoice range is usually enforced by the tax office to keep track of how many invoices you have issued. Leaving a gap is considered an inconsistency and has legal consequences. Hence my question.
I don't know how it works in your jurisdiction, but we get a $200 USD fine if we miss a number and leave a gap without declaring it. There is currently no easy way to verify if there is a gap... so we must remember... and often we don't. It is easier to get rid of the problem by never having gaps.
...I mean an alternative would be to Void the invoices, but this is not desired.
I'm with @clarkraymond on this one...
I have used/developed for 50+ accounting systems over the past two decades and have never found one to fill in missing invoice numbers like you are requesting.
And while your jurisdiction is almost certainly different then mine; I would venture a guess that the legal ramifications for reusing a previously issued invoice number for a new invoice would be worse than having a missing number.
That being said, if the laws were like that where I do business, then I would absolutely "void" the invoices and never actually delete one. And that particular feature would be very nice indeed. @UBNT-Petr
Yes, voiding an invoice instead of deleting it is recommended solution.
Filling a the gap automatically can have unexpected consequences, especially if you use year or month placeholders in the invoice number. It's doable but I expect it won't be useful for the majority of users. Please create a new feature request of you don't think so.