I forgot to mention, when trying to craft a better resulting report, ask yourself, “What makes the transactions on either report not show up on the other?”
Then use *that* info to craft the intended report. (as it is the set of transactions you are looking for) Regards, Adrien > On Nov 9, 2019 w45d313, at 9:13 AM, Adrien Monteleone > <adrien.montele...@lusfiber.net> wrote: > > I would say consider the criteria you used to create the set of transactions > for each report, then try to craft a report using the options that gives you > only those that don’t lie in the joint set. > > If *every* transaction on both reports is between two and only the *same two* > accounts then you might do better with using regex and/or instead do a Find > operation then run an Account Report instead of a Transaction Report. (since > Find can filter on more fields) > > My personal mileage is better with running Find operations from the Accounts > tab rather than a particular register. > > If however, the two reports have transactions all sharing one account in > common (say checking) but not other splits, you might want to investigate the > Account Filter option. So while filtering on other data might appear to get > you what you want, sometimes filtering by the ‘other’ split narrows things > down much faster. With a Transaction Report (as opposed to Find then Account > Report) you can filter based on including or not including transactions which > have splits in other accounts. > > Otherwise, the spreadsheet approach is likely the simplest. If you know how > to use command-line tools, you could use the spreadsheet step just for saving > in CSV format, then using a cli `diff` tool to show you what is different > between the two files. (MacOS as well as most if not all BSD & Linux > distributions have this built-in. I’m not sure about Windows) > > Such tools are very fast and each one has its own features. The output takes > some getting used to as most are not super ‘clean’ on screen, but once you do > it enough, you’ll be able to use them more effectively. > > You could jump straight to using `diff` and get used to it, and it will help > get the job done, but the better option is to think carefully about what you > are trying to find and then crafting a Find or Report that gets you there > from within GnuCash. > > Regards, > Adrien > > > >> On Nov 9, 2019 w45d313, at 8:53 AM, Fran_3 via gnucash-user >> <gnucash-user@gnucash.org> wrote: >> >> I want to compare Transaction Report A to Transaction Report B >> and find transactions that appear on one report but not on the other... aka >> orphan transactions >> In past I have either... >> - Done a screen capture of each, pasted them side by side in PC Paint and >> marked off matching transactions one by one... >> - Or printed them out and done the same with pen & paper >> - Or exported the reports and then imported them into a spreadsheet and >> marked matching transactions one by one >> All of this is a bunch of work... >> >> Is there an easier way? >> Thanks for any help - Fran3 _______________________________________________ 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.
