Frappe Cloud Support Partners Foundation Frappe School

Expenses in P&L statement


I have done a set of trail-transactions to learn and understand how things work.

Did one purchase transaction to buy stock
Did a manufacture-run to make the sub-assemblies ( Manufacture-1)
Did a manufacture-run to make the product (Manufacture-2)
Sold one product

If I post ALL the transaction detail it may be to much?
So I shall post a summary of the transactions that I made in power-point together with a
screenshot of the P&L spreadsheet which I exported.

And here is the spreadsheet


I have 2 questions:

During material transfer (Manufacture-1) R0-50 is transferred to “Stock in hand” but
R0-10 of that is via “Stock Adjustment” and R0-40 is directly to “Stock in hand”
And for the second manufacturing cycle ( Manufacture-2) the R0-51 is transferred
directly from “Expenses in included in Valuation” to “Stock in hand”
Is there a setting that I could have left out that can cause this inconsistency"

Second question:
In the P&L statement, the R253-19 “Cost of good sold” already includes the “expenses included in valuation” of R1-01. Why is this substracted from R253-19 to yield a cost of
R252-18 ? My cost is R253-19. So , as I look at it , less of my costs are reflected in my
P&L. Am I missing something,

If someone can please tell me what I am missing.


About my own question 1 — the seemingly “inconsistency”.
The problem was caused by rounding. Yes I did have “Rounding disabled” but that is not enough.

The valuation in the stores for the initial purchase transaction, was a float calculation, which was done to 3 decimal places precision. ( Default )

From thereon, these values were rounded to 2 places. You have to set the currency precision
to 3 decimal places as well
System settings -> Date and Number format.

I am hoping someone can still help with my question 2…
Why is “Expenses included in valuation” listed in the P&L statement. This is my manufacturing
cost and it is already included in my “Cost of goods sold”. By adding it as a negative, that cost
is effectively removed from my cost equation.