Would anyone object to the following (last) amendment to budget totals: separate the account types, and add 'Remaining to budget' line which implements the budget-to-zero facility, and *will* replicate the 3.7 behaviour. (Note the totals *will* be renamed to "Total Assets" "Total Expense" etc.)
[image: budget-view.png] On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 05:07, Christopher Lam <christopher....@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for trying Adrien. This budget bug is proving to be a major > headache. I really need more beta testers, especially with ability to build > from my branch. > > Of note: > * previous methodology was: in a period, budgeted income, minus budgeted > expense and any asset/liability transfers, must result in zero. This > assumes credit-accounts sign reversal. > * future methodology is: in a period, all natural budget amounts must > equal zero. i.e. incomes being negative, will be balanced by positive > expenses etc. > > My plan to try fix this for good is to *remove* all totals except the > "Remaining to Budget"; from my understanding this is the only total of any > use. > > Alternatively, another plan is to switch to future methodology and forego > backward compatibility in existing budgets, for use in 4.x or 5.x. > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 17:59, Adrien Monteleone < > adrien.montele...@lusfiber.net> wrote: > >> I just posted my first result and impression to the bug report, though >> I’m sure you saw that already. (this is more for the benefit of list >> readers not following the bug) >> >> The signs aren’t making sense, and the amounts aren’t adding up correctly. >> >> Regards, >> Adrien >> >> > On Apr 10, 2020 w15d101, at 5:59 AM, Christopher Lam < >> christopher....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Next addendum: your existing budget data will behave well when reverse >> > balances=credit accounts, but the *featured* data will be stable with >> *any* >> > reverse balances global preference option. >> > >> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 11:28 am Christopher Lam, < >> christopher....@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 10:20 am Christopher Lam, < >> christopher....@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Deadline is 11 April at noon GMT, so, about 34 hours from now. >> >>> >> >>> For both: *existing* datafile and especially *4.x-featured *datafile >> (in >> >>> bug report). >> >>> >> >>> Please test: >> >>> - creation of budget amounts >> >>> - use estimate to prefill cells >> >>> - all totals in all 5 account types A/L/Inc/Exp/Eq behave >> appropriately >> >>> >> >> >> >> Addendum this is not simply an arithmetic test; it *****must**** also >> >> confirm that the totals and signs are sensible for the purpose of >> >> budgeting. Hence the difficulty of a one person coder to make it work. >> For >> >> example, we can budget a liability account regularly until we have >> enough >> >> deposit for a huge loan, or we can budget a liability account >> regularly for >> >> the loan repayments. IIUC both approaches are "valid" but the signs >> will be >> >> opposite. Other counter examples likely exist. >> >> >> >> - budget.scm report (optionally other budget reports but these are >> lower >> >>> priority) and especially difference column. >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 02:16, Adrien Monteleone < >> >>> adrien.montele...@lusfiber.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Thank You! This makes it so much easier to test. I’ll give the >> flatpak a >> >>>> spin and see what I find. I still haven’t set up a build environment >> for >> >>>> Mac yet. (and watching a recent thread on the subject makes it look >> >>>> daunting compared to Linux) >> >>>> >> >>>> This is a busy weekend for me though. What kind of time frame do you >> >>>> have and is there something in particular you’re looking to find. >> (other >> >>>> than just loosely that the totals appear to work) >> >>>> >> >>>> Regards, >> >>>> Adrien >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2020 w15d100, at 9:10 PM, Christopher Lam < >> >>>> christopher....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 2020-04-07 nightly available at >> >>>> https://code.gnucash.org/builds/win32/maint/ >> >>>>> flatpaks available at >> https://code.gnucash.org/builds/flatpak/maint/ >> >>>> - use >> >>>>> between 2020-04-04 and 2020-04-10 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 01:38, Christopher Lam < >> >>>> christopher....@gmail.com> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> This topic is about budgets. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We now know that budgets are currently inherently flawed: they >> >>>> *assume* >> >>>>>> that sign-reversal = credit-accounts, and do not work well at all >> >>>> with any >> >>>>>> other sign-reversal option. In addition, there was a feature >> request >> >>>> (bug >> >>>>>> 781345) that introduced budget equity into the equation, and I >> still >> >>>> do not >> >>>>>> know whether a budget equity amount is a correct approach. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> In 4.x series there is a planned *fix* which will scan budget >> amounts, >> >>>>>> use heuristics to determine the most likely sign-reversal approach >> >>>> used >> >>>>>> during budget creation, internally unreverse the amounts, and >> upgrade >> >>>> the >> >>>>>> datafile so that it cannot be damaged by 3.7 or earlier. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Therefore 3.8 was the first release which could handle both old and >> >>>> fixed >> >>>>>> budget amounts. Unfortunately, the interpretation of budget signs >> >>>> was/is >> >>>>>> very difficult, which explained the switch to >> >>>>>> asset/liability/equity/income/expense totals, which are impervious >> to >> >>>>>> budget signs. Unfortunately users missed the "Remaining to Budget" >> >>>> facility. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Therefore 3.9 was, during development, tested with >> >>>>>> https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/pull/630 and was deemed "good >> >>>> enough" >> >>>>>> to fix to restore the remaining to budget total. Unfortunately the >> >>>>>> liability budget amount issue was tested incorrectly. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> For a week, the git-maint contained a candidate fix, discussed in >> >>>>>> https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=797659 -- but there is >> >>>>>> insufficient beta testing on the budgets for now. So, 3.10 will >> >>>> retain 3.9 >> >>>>>> behaviour unless the fix is fully tested. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Conclusion: this is a call for beta testers, using the 2020-04-07 >> >>>> nightly >> >>>>>> (the only one with the fix), to test both their datafiles and the >> >>>>>> *4.x-featured* datafile attached in the bug report. Please >> >>>> *especially* >> >>>>>> test the liability and equity totals, both with existing datafile >> and >> >>>>>> featured datafile. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Flame away. I will try to be available throughout the day for >> testing. >> >>>>>> Win32 users have only 1 build to test, Linux users may also build >> from >> >>>>>> 882fd22ca rather than git-maint which has returned to 3.9 >> behaviour. >> >>>> I'm >> >>>>>> not sure how MacOS users can test. >> >>>>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
