Ok. Thanks. I'll leave it lie then. Never mind.
On Sep 16, 2020, 19:47, at 19:47, Christopher Lam <christopher....@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi David, responses inline. I'm sure you know it's my work, and I am >(for >now) happy to defend its state. TBH I do not need this report myself, >but >figure out it fills a gap. I also think devel is more appropriate. > >In my view it won't come out of experimental anytime soon because of >https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=797786 -- figuring out price >from >stock/foreign-currency into target currency is *HARD*. TL;DR: in some >price-sources (avg-bal/wt-avg) current balance sheet will tally only >txns >UPTO report-date and calculate price from it; in multicolumn report >there >are multiple report-dates therefore this strategy would be far too >slow. >I'm running out of steam to make pricing behave identically to the old >balance-sheet. > >On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 16:42, David T. via gnucash-user < >gnucash-u...@gnucash.org> wrote: > >> 1. When initially run, I receive an empty report. This is similar to >the >> initial result of the basic Transaction report, except in the latter >> case, users are given a note that links them to the report options. >It >> would seem to me that at the least, this report should do the same. A >> better solution in both cases would be to have initial parameters >that >> return some kind of data--however unrelated to the user's end >> goal--rather than an empty page. It seems to me that users are better >at >> changing something they see that is wrong, rather than trying to >conjure >> it up out of thin air. (the famous quote from US Supreme Court >Justice >> Potter Stewart regarding obscenity comes to mind here: "I know it >when I >> see it. This is not it."). In the Balance Sheet, changing the Period >> Duration setting from its default "None" to anything else (I'd >suggest >> "Year") yields data from which a user can build. (I have no >suggestions >> for the Transaction Report.) >> > >This would be worthy of an individual bug report . > > >> 2. The report defaults to including all accounts, including hidden >and >> placeholder accounts. While there is an option on the Accounts tab to >> display hidden accounts, I think the decision to include hidden >accounts >> in the report by default is confusing, given that the Account tab >> doesn't display hidden accounts by default. I think it makes more >sense >> for the report either to default to omitting hidden accounts, or to >> default to displaying hidden accounts in the options dialog. I see >that >> the standard Balance Sheet report also includes hidden accounts by >> default, although this is masked because the standard report limits >the >> accounts to 3 levels (the Experimental report defaults to All >levels). I >> will note that there is an option on the Display tab to omit zero >> balance accounts, which may have been seen as a way to skip hidden >> accounts. However, while it may not be prudent or common practice to >> hide accounts that have balances, there is nothing in the program to >> prevent this, which means that hiding zero balance accounts is not >the >> same as including hidden accounts. I'll note that if I Clear All and >> then click Select All on the Accounts tab, the report properly omits >all >> hidden accounts, which it should also do by default. I suggest that >both >> reports should default to omitting Hidden accounts on opening, and >that >> the default level setting should be the same for both. >> > >Also worthy of a bug report. The rationale IMV is that hidden accounts >can >carry balances and if they are skipped during report generation, they >will >cause undue mismatch between children balances and total parent >balances. > > >> >> 3. The report propagates balances all the way up the account >hierarchy, >> which makes sense for accounts denominated in a currency. However, >with >> accounts denominated in commodities (such as Stock or Mutual Fund >> accounts), it makes less sense, and in fact renders the report >extremely >> difficult to follow, especially with accounts with many different >> commodities. Seeing a full listing of all 150 different commodities >(and >> various subsets thereof) repeated for >> >> Assets, >> Assets:Investments, >> Assets:Investments:Taxed, >> Assets:Investments:Taxed:Self, and >> Assets:Investments:Taxable:Self:Brokerage A >> >> gets old and confusing very quickly. It would be better to propagate >> totals for the book currency only, and leave the tallying of stock >and >> mutual fund holdings to the Advanced Portfolio report. I will note >that >> initially, I was going to ask why some entries in the report were >listed >> as hyperlinks, while others were not. After some puzzling, I figured >out >> that the non-linked entries were summarizations of holdings further >down >> the hierarchy. Removing the numerous duplications of commodity >> summmarizations would at least make it a little clearer what is going >on >> in this regard. I will further note that the standard report does not >> repeat this information up the hierarchy. >> > >This multiplication of commodities only takes place if the report does >not >convert to target currency. e.g. if you have US tech stocks and set >conversion to USD, it will attempt to convert all your AAPL MSFT TSLA >to >USD. If conversion is impossible (eg you have TSLA but there's no >TSLA/USD >price) then it will leave TSLA as is and show TSLA + cash+stocks USD. >For >that matter, hiding stocks from propagating up the chain isn't a good >idea >IMHO. > >Moreover, the standard balance-sheet or profit-and-loss report is *not* >good in forcibly converting all commodities & currencies into target >currency -- if the conversion cannot take place (e.g. missing pricedb >entries) the original currency amount becomes zero target currency. > >IMHO etc _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
