[Master]-Outgoing Payment Report Employee Payments Missing

[Fixes4BC (neeleshsinghal)]

Fixes AB#650708

[alexei-dobriansky]

Good Sense Reviewer - Round 1

Recommendation: Accept with Suggestions

What this PR does

This change lets DTA Payment Journal include employee payment lines as well as vendor payment lines. It keeps vendor-specific calculations in a helper and adds employee name and bank account values for the new line type.

The root filter change matches the reported scenario, and the test covers a mixed vendor/employee batch. The main remaining issue is display data that still comes from vendor-only fields after employee rows are added.

Problem-solution fit

Fit: Strong

The change addresses the described missing employee-payment scenario directly by including Employee account type and filling the employee account name and bank account. It does not overreach into posting or export logic, but two vendor-only display fields need cleanup so the printed report is accurate for employee rows.

Suggestions

S1 (🟠 Moderate): Blank payment form for employee rows
Employee rows still publish VendorBankAccountPaymentForm from a cleared vendor bank account, so the report can show the default ESR value. Set a separate payment-form value and leave it blank for employee rows.

S2 (🟠 Moderate): Use account name in totals
The row name now uses AccountName, but the total text still uses Vendor.Name. When an employee has more than one line, the total can show a blank or stale vendor name. Build the total text from AccountName and reset it when the account changes.

Risk assessment and necessity

Risk: This is report-only, so an error affects printed DTA payment journal information for CH payment batches, not posting. The main regression surface is vendor report output after the refactor and the new employee display values.

Necessity: The change is needed because employee payment lines are valid in the payment journal and were not included in this report. The scope is targeted and keeps the existing vendor calculations in place.

---

[AI-PR-REVIEW] version=1 promptVersion=4 system=github pr=11638 round=1 by=alexei-dobriansky at=2026-09-21T07:11:28Z lastSha=8456548a087f4852a6d70cca1e9174bff79feaa4 reviewKey=24a80e0694accf2fd996c416b003f27bcfc03fc6b09fe02d3c8d1c4037cf9e4e suggestions=S1@89d88941,S2@99a964e0

[alexei-dobriansky]

Good Sense Reviewer - Round 2

Recommendation: Accept with Suggestions

What this PR does

This round keeps the CH DTA Payment Journal product change focused on including employee payment lines, filling employee name and bank account values, and preserving vendor calculations after the refactor. The new commits only adjust tests, so prior report-output concerns remain the important review points.

Status of previous suggestions

ID	Title	Status	Author response
S1	Blank payment form for employee rows	Not addressed	The report code that publishes payment form values was not changed.
S2	Use account name in totals	Not addressed	The total-text path was not changed by this round.

New observations (commits since round 1)

None - the new commits only adjust test code.

Risk assessment and necessity

Risk: The change is report-only, so the risk is inaccurate CH DTA Payment Journal output rather than posting or payment execution.

Necessity: Employee payment lines are valid payment journal lines and should appear in the report. The remaining suggestions should be addressed so employee rows and totals do not show blank or stale vendor values.

---

[AI-PR-REVIEW] version=1 promptVersion=4 system=github pr=11638 round=2 by=alexei-dobriansky at=2026-09-21T20:24:08.8439310Z lastSha=72d4315711ae5060c35874c572255400610f81c4 reviewKey=ba16b9042d22eed3f90df18b5060de050a24946032d806d6201d4e5705673665 suggestions=S1@old:notaddressed,S2@old:notaddressed parentRound=1