2009/8/4 Forest Bond <for...@alittletooquiet.net>: > Hi Phil, > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 12:02:07PM -0400, Phil Longstaff wrote: >> The budget report is my current itch, so I've been upgrading it. > > ... > > I'd like to see the budget reporting improved as much as anyone else, and I'm > glad that you are looking at it. However, the semantics of budget data have > not > been clearly established, as I highlighted in a comment on bug #570895: > > My current understanding of budget numbers is that if A and B are expense > accounts and B is a child account of A and both A and B have numbers entered > for a given period in the budget, the total expenses for that period is > A[period] + B[period]. In other words, A[period] doesn't *override* > B[period].
+1 on this. To clarify further If a user enters a budget for A and B then the A budget should be that applying to splits entered directly for account A and the B budget is that applying to those entered directly for account B. Exactly as if they were not parent and child in fact. > This is how things are handled in BIS, anyway. I don't think the > correct behavior is documented anywhere. This may be part of a larger design > discussion, so feel free to move it to the ML if you think it is appropriate. > > I'd really like to see some agreement on this before the budget reports get > much > further. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Forest > -- > Forest Bond > http://www.alittletooquiet.net > http://www.pytagsfs.org > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFKd65kRO4fQQdv5AwRArcJAKChtqqoINandys0Jly18Xte9HG3iwCgvHYj > MY/KvuaokEmaWreG2HN17ks= > =wnga > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > > _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
