On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:02:52PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote: > Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >>I don't have a good solution, at present ... just bringing it up. > >>Probably the right thing is for SXes to just suck it up and model > >>template transactions seperately from the "real" > >>accounts/transactions/splits, though there's some serious downsides > >>there, too. > > > >I'd actually recommend going the other direction. > > > > 1) eliminate all SX "virtual" accounts. > > 2) Introduce a flag to Transaction: "is_template"? > > 3) Make SX transactions out of real Transactions (with > >is_template=true), with real zero-valued Splits, belonging to the real > >accounts, with "scheduled" values as strings in the Split's KVP. > > 4) Change xaccQueryGetTransactions() and > >xaccSplitListGetUniqueTransactions() to ignore template transactions. > > > >What do you think? > > I prefer separating them. There are too many places where you could > build an incorrect query and get template txns where you really want > real ones, or vice-versa.
All queries would ignore template transactions, except those that explicitly looked for them - just like it is now. > Also, the reason for the "account" is that an SX could need to > create multiple transactions at once. I'm not sure how you would do > this in your approach where you eliminate these virtual accounts. A single SX can keep a list of transactions that are all scheduled at once. -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
