Throwing my two cents in, I'm a newbie at a point where I'm starting to have an import workflow down and starting to approach writing custom reports. I've been using fava more and it was a selling point (along with some other beancount features) for me at first in using it over ledger. I haven't really used bean-web yet, and only recently started playing with bean-query.
> How many people here use bean-report as their main way to generate data from Beancount? Might be digressing, but I'm confused about the philosophy behind plugins, custom reports, and queries. Is the convention that users use/write plugins such that the standard reports in bean-report provide what most need? Was there ever a idea of a 'reports' directory (akin to 'importers') convention for additional reports that would then appear under bean-report or fava -- or are additional reports just supposed to be written/executed separately (as seen in some of the scripts in the 'experiments' folder)? Asking as my intial glance into reports.py (in beancount) and the 'REPORTS' array in application.py (in fava) are initially leading me to think that if one wants to add a report one keeps a personal branch of either project - wondering if there'd be interest in having something like a 'class ConfigReporterMixin' if the output from a report becomes more generic. -Vivek (Also, I'm nine days early, but happy tenth anniversary to beancount on the 'initial import' commit!) On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:53:42 PM UTC-7, Martin Blais wrote: > > How many people here use bean-report as their main way to generate data > from Beancount? > How many use bean-web? > Does anybody still care about bean-web now that Fava exists? > > Also... is it possible to bean-bake Fava (or some equivalent creation of a > static version for sharing)? > > Any input appreciated, > > > (Reason I'm asking is: I'm thinking about > - rewriting the query engine to something more powerful and general, and > promoting it from experimental and somewhat flaky to the main way of > getting data out > - rewriting bean-web to be a dumber, more generic web interface that > basically renders SQL queries (using the new query engine) without any > special treatment (just tables and tree-tables) > - deleting bean-reports and all of beancount/reports, or replacing most of > it by SQL queries > - in the process deleting the Holdings code > Basically, I think that with a slightly improved query engine I could > delete a ton of code without removing functionality at all.) > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to beancount+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to beancount@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/fc515ea4-eb5b-4d25-84a9-d385022d3370%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
