> Dave Peticolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Currently however, when you delete a 'transaction' in the register,
> > you are really deleting the split. Thus, if you delete Split 1 from
> > your Checking account, Split 2 remains in the Fuel account. The
> > transaction is now unbalanced, because it doesn't add up to 0.
>
> I'm with the other Rob here :> This seems like a bug (or a misfeature)
> unless I'm misunderstanding. If I delete a split, I expect *both
> sides* of the split to disappear. If I delete a transaction, I expect
> all the splits to disappear. The alternatives make no sense to me and
> will screw up everyone's data. The current code really handles
> deletes like this? I though I had checked this a while back and it
> worked (IMO) "right".
>
> > 2. If you're in single or double mode, or you're on the
> > 'transaction' line in multi-mode, the delete command deletes the
> > whole transaction and all its splits. But if you're on a split line
> > in multi-mode, delete just deletes the one split.
>
> I was fully under the delusion that this was how it worked *now*.
> Perhaps I checked the Lesstif version. Is the GNOME one different in
> this respect? If so, it sounds like I'm going to have to spend some
> time trying to figure out if my data has been "broken" by improper
> deletes. :<
I'm afraid neither gnome nor motif works that way. However, you can
use 'Scrub' account-by-account to find unbalances transactions. I'm
going to add two menu items to Scrub an account tree and to Scrub
all accounts at once. That will go in tonight, along with deleting
transactions for real.
> I expected that a delete from transaction line would *always* delete
> the entire transaction (and all its splits), and that a delete from a
> normal split line (i.e. not a collapsed multi-split placeholder line)
> would delete that split, and if it's the last split, would delete the
> whole transaction. I'd also expect that the confirmation dialogs
> for the delete would describe exactly what's going to happen.
>
> The only question to me is what should happen if you have a
> multi-split transaction, the register is in single line-mode, the
> cursor is on the single "psudo-split" line for the transaction, and
> the user requests a delete. In that case, I'd probably want to see a
> dialog saying, "This transaction has hidden split lines. Should I
> delete all of these splits?". If the user says yes, then we should
> either delete the entire transaction, and all of the splits, or we
> should delete all of the splits and place the cursor on a new blank,
> uncommitted split line for that transaction. The latter approach lets
> you select the transaction to delete the transaction, and the
> collapsed split line to just delete all the splits...
In the latter, you mean we should switch modes and go to a blank split
line for the transaction? And in the latter, you mean delete all the splits
except for the one going into the account, right?
I'd favor the former, as it seems more straightforward.
dave
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
