John, I accept your points regarding the dialog. It would be nice still to see what those options might be.
As for editing transaction-level data and having splits de-reconciled, it may be that changing the date makes sense, but I disagree when the description is edited. To be sure, it is unfortunate that the data elements in common usage do not fall into strictly acceptable boundaries; nonetheless, I think that the Description field should not be one of those transaction-level fields that forces a user to re-reconcile multiple accounts. Best, David > On Apr 29, 2019, at 8:28 PM, John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 29, 2019, at 12:54 AM, David T. via gnucash-user >> <gnucash-user@gnucash.org> wrote: >> >> It was pointed out to me in another thread that one can reset specific >> warnings flags using Action->Reset Warnings. >> >> I’d like to raise a couple of points with this dialog, now that I have been >> introduced to it… >> >> First off, the dialog is quite opaque, insofar as it is (apparently) only >> showing warnings for which I have selected options previously. There is no >> way for me to determine what (if any) other options I have here. I imagine >> it would be a whole lot clearer if I could have a listing of all the various >> options, along with their current setting. It is counterintuitive to me the >> way it is set up here. >> >> Be that as it may, I have three entries listed here: “Change contents of >> reconciled split”“Remove a split from a transaction”“Commit changes to a >> transaction” >> >> The first setting listed here refers to the behavior of de-reconciling a >> split in GnuCash. However, if a user changes Transaction-level data >> elements—such as the Description field—a split will become de-reconciled. >> Therefore, this preference is misnamed, and should be changed, since I >> should receive an alert if I change the description and the reconcile flag >> gets reset. Perhaps “Change reconcile flag upon edit” would be better? >> >> Second, it seems to me that the boundary for when a split becomes >> de-reconciled needs to be drawn differently. I know this issue was discussed >> recently, and there were reasons given for why the logic falls the way it >> does. However, reconciliation applies to the *split*, as shown by the fact >> that each split in a transaction can be separately reconciled in its own >> account. Changing the status of the split based on a change in the >> transaction is inconsistent and illogical to me. >> >> I have transactions with as many as ten splits, in which several splits are >> reconciled. If, for some reason, I then change the description of the >> transaction, then every one of those reconciled splits will get >> de-reconciled-- requiring me to reconcile every linked account. >> >> Finally, I will note that the program is at least consistent, in that when >> you change a description field, it does in fact change every cleared split >> in that transaction. I do, however, question whether that is the correct >> action to impose. >> > > David, > > Did you read the description at the top of the dialog? It says > "You have requested that the following warning dialogs not be presented. To > re-enable any of these dialogs, select the check box next to the dialog, then > click OK." > > What's unclear about that? It's not a "manage warning dialogs" dialog, but it > doesn't claim to be. You can file an enhancement asking for one if you like. > > I agree that the "change reconciled splits" is a bit misleading. The actual > dialog with the warning is called "Change transaction with a reconciled > split". Both the setting and the tool-tip imply that it's per-split rather > than per-transaction. > > I'm ambivalent about whether changing the transaction should de-reconcile a > split, but it seems clear to me that changing the transaction date should as > that affects the ordering of the split when calculating the balance, so ISTM > that should continue to unreconcile all of the splits in the transaction. > > I also noticed while checking the reset warnings dialog that it doesn't take > effect during the current session. I filed > https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=797222 to track that. > > Regards, > John Ralls > > > _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
