Re: Translation problems with planned transactions schedule
If I create branch from maint head and make necessary changes, can you review them, if fits for current minimum libs version reqs. for gnucash? 2014-04-13 23:05 GMT+04:00 Dmitry Pavlov : > If I get you right, you'd like to know what is the difference between > using this context (or disambiguation prefixes) and plural functions. The > main difference is dynamic UI updates. With plurals you need to update > labels around the inputs on every change of spinbox or combobox. Even if > that updates exists (now it seems to be a static label, that is set in > .glade file) plurals still have problems, because correct "Every" > translation depends on the frequency type. > If we use only context, then for almost every value in input translation > can fit well (exception can be singular form). But it would surely be more > correct then now. > So the ideal situation is a context to differentiate types + dynamic > labels to format correct plural forms. But I'm afraid it would take a lot > of work + editing "controlling" code, not just glade xml. I'm ready to edit > xml file and provide a patch, but not ready to dig in c code to add dynamic > labels. > > As for minimum Gtk version. I think it is 2.18, but not sure. That info i > found here (https://developer.gnome.org/glib/2.37/glib-I18N.html#C-:CAPS, > see "since" section for functions). > Locally I test on ubuntu with the following installed package: > libgtk2.0-dev ver. 2.24.10-0ubuntu6. gettext version is 0.18.1.1-5ubuntu3 > Pot file is generated well: > #: ../src/gnome-utils/gtkbuilder/gnc-frequency.glade.h:7 > msgctxt "Daily" > msgid "Every" > msgstr "" > > I tried to add this to ru.po. Translated, make && make install, works fine. > > > 2014-04-13 19:07 GMT+04:00 John Ralls : > > >> On Apr 13, 2014, at 2:16 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> >> > I've found that to implement minimum solution, we can just add >> > context="..." to glade translated labels. like this >> > > context="Daily">Every >> > >> > This utilizes context lookup feature in gettext, instead of >> disambiguation >> > prefixes, but it seems working just fine. >> > >> > does anyone mind about such change? >> > >> >> Sounds good, how does it compare with using the plurals function? >> >> Is there a mimimum Gtk version required? >> >> Regards, >> John Ralls >> > > > > -- > С уважением, > Дмитрий Павлов > -- С уважением, Дмитрий Павлов ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Translation problems with planned transactions schedule
On Apr 15, 2014, at 7:18 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > If I create branch from maint head and make necessary changes, can you review > them, if fits for current minimum libs version reqs. for gnucash? > Of course. Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Budget View Implementation Question
Hi, recently I started playing around with the budget feature, trying it out with a simple account structure - only top level accounts. Doing so I noticed - In the summary view at the bottom of the page the totals per period are not counted for top level accounts without children - there is only one top level account per type allowed for the same summary, no matter if they have children or not I checked the documentation, but I did not see any hints to this limitations. Personally I would like to see the top level accounts considered, just to avoid confusion. The fact, to have only one top level account per account type is fine with me. Here I would be fine with an update of the documentation. Bottom line: I propose two enhancement bugs, one for code, one for documentation. Good proposal? Kind regards, Carsten ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Budget View Implementation Question
Do you have top-level accounts which don't wouldn't fall under Income, Expense, Assets, Liabilities or Equity? Or, are you saying that if those are your only top-level-accounts, they aren't included? Or are you saying that if they are in a different language (e.g. German), they aren't included? Phil On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Carsten Rinke wrote: > Hi, > > recently I started playing around with the budget feature, trying it out > with a simple account structure - only top level accounts. > > Doing so I noticed > - In the summary view at the bottom of the page the totals per period are > not counted for top level accounts without children > - there is only one top level account per type allowed for the same > summary, no matter if they have children or not > > I checked the documentation, but I did not see any hints to this > limitations. > > Personally I would like to see the top level accounts considered, just to > avoid confusion. > > The fact, to have only one top level account per account type is fine with > me. Here I would be fine with an update of the documentation. > > Bottom line: I propose two enhancement bugs, one for code, one for > documentation. > > Good proposal? > > Kind regards, > Carsten > ___ > 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
Re: Budget View Implementation Question
On 4/15/2014 12:32 PM, Carsten Rinke wrote: > Hi, > > recently I started playing around with the budget feature, trying it > out with a simple account structure - only top level accounts. > > Doing so I noticed > - In the summary view at the bottom of the page the totals per period > are not counted for top level accounts without children > - there is only one top level account per type allowed for the same > summary, no matter if they have children or not > > I checked the documentation, but I did not see any hints to this > limitations. > > Personally I would like to see the top level accounts considered, just > to avoid confusion. > > The fact, to have only one top level account per account type is fine > with me. Here I would be fine with an update of the documentation. > > Bottom line: I propose two enhancement bugs, one for code, one for > documentation. > > Good proposal? > > Kind regards, > Carsten > ___ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > Carsten, As a user I certainly agree that the budget feature should be substantially improved. I will ask what you mean by top level accounts, the five basic types (Asset, Liability, Income, Expense and Equity) or the first detail level just below those? I think that there are two or more types of usage for budgets, one being limited to income and expense, and another being more oriented to cash flow, which may include assets and liabilities, and the budget (and budget report) feature(s) should work for either. Are you actually discussing budget reports? I do not see the totals that you mention in the budgets that I have in my data file. I think that budget reports should be addressed separately to avoid confusion. Theoretically, there could be several budget reports linked to a given budget. They too need enhancement along with documentation. Whichever you mean, please be very specific. I would be willing to help with the documentation soon as I expect to have more time free if I can get a different (less resource hungry) antivirus program installed and operating.. The one I have now is killing me. David C ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Budget View Implementation Question
I think those two limitations came in accidentally. When discussing and thinking about it, both should better be fixed instead of only being documented. If you have the time to do it, though. Regards, Christian On 15. April 2014 19:32:15 MESZ, Carsten Rinke wrote: >Hi, > >recently I started playing around with the budget feature, trying it >out >with a simple account structure - only top level accounts. > >Doing so I noticed >- In the summary view at the bottom of the page the totals per period >are not counted for top level accounts without children >- there is only one top level account per type allowed for the same >summary, no matter if they have children or not > >I checked the documentation, but I did not see any hints to this >limitations. > >Personally I would like to see the top level accounts considered, just >to avoid confusion. > >The fact, to have only one top level account per account type is fine >with me. Here I would be fine with an update of the documentation. > >Bottom line: I propose two enhancement bugs, one for code, one for >documentation. > >Good proposal? > >Kind regards, >Carsten >___ >gnucash-devel mailing list >gnucash-devel@gnucash.org >https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel -- Sent from mobile. ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Budget View Implementation Question
Hi Phil, David and Christian,
thanks for your replies.
On 04/15/2014 10:51 PM, Phil Longstaff wrote:
Do you have top-level accounts which don't wouldn't fall under Income,
Expense, Assets, Liabilities or Equity? Or, are you saying that if those
are your only top-level-accounts, they aren't included? Or are you saying
that if they are in a different language (e.g. German), they aren't
included?
Phil
I was using three top level accounts: Income, Asset, Expense
Income has type income, Asset has type asset, Expense has type expense.
All of them without children (goto Account Dialog, last item "Parent
Accounts" has "New Top Level Account" selected).
I use English locale.
How do you get to the idea that this might be a language specific
issue?
On 04/16/2014 02:36 AM, David Carlson wrote:
As a user I certainly agree that the budget feature should be
substantially improved. I will ask what you mean by top level
accounts, the five basic types (Asset, Liability, Income, Expense
and Equity) or the first detail level just below those? I think that
there are two or more types of usage for budgets, one being limited
to income and expense, and another being more oriented to cash flow,
which may include assets and liabilities, and the budget (and budget
report) feature(s) should work for either. Are you actually
discussing budget reports? I do not see the totals that you mention
in the budgets that I have in my data file. I think that budget
reports should be addressed separately to avoid confusion.
Theoretically, there could be several budget reports linked to a
given budget. They too need enhancement along with documentation.
Whichever you mean, please be very specific. I would be willing to
help with the documentation soon as I expect to have more time free
if I can get a different (less resource hungry) antivirus program
installed and operating.. The one I have now is killing me.
Right now, I am only referring to the Bugdet "editor"
(Actions->Budget), not any report from the Reports menu.
I setup only one budget period, so next to the account tree I see two
columns, one for the budget period, and one column for the totals. The
totals column is fine for both the totals from the account tree and the
total from the summary table at the bottom of the page. The budget is
fine for the period column from the accounts tree, but shows only 0.00
in the period column of the summary table at the bottom of the page.
When adding children to the top level accounts, everything is working
fine.
I have read about the two budget usage types in the documentation
("Income/Expense" and "Cash Flow"), but I do no see a relevance of this
section for the Budget editor. I read it more as a recommendation, but
as far as I can see the editor does not depend on any certain account
setup (apart from the "only one top level account per type").
... and good luck with the antivirus program ... ;-)
On 04/16/2014 07:31 AM, Christian Stimming (mobil) wrote:
I think those two limitations came in accidentally. When discussing
and thinking about it, both should better be fixed instead of only
being documented. If you have the time to do it, though.
Regards, Christian
For the "Summary table only showing 0.00 for accounts without children"
issue I can provide a patch.
For "Only one top level account per type" this is more complex, I
believe that this is rather a concept related thing. In the very
beginning, pointers are collected for each type, and only one pointer
per type. And these are heavily in use afterwards. So my impression is
that this is not trivial.
What do you think about opening three bugs:
- one for the "Summary table only showing 0.00 for accounts without
children" (bug)
- one for updating the documentation with the given limitation
(enhancement)
- one for removing the "only one top level account per type supported"
issue (bug)
The two first ones I see as candidates for 2.6.4++, while the last one
I would not expect to start before 2.7.x (or whatever comes after 2.6).
Kind regards,
Carsten
On 15. April 2014 19:32:15 MESZ, Carsten Rinke
[1] wrote:
Hi,
recently I started playing around with the budget feature, trying it out
with a simple account structure - only top level accounts.
Doing so I noticed
- In the summary view at the bottom of the page the totals per period
are not counted for top level accounts without children
- there is only one top level account per type allowed for the same
summary, no matter if they have children or not
I checked the documentation, but I did not see any hints to this
limitations.
Personally I would like to see the top level accounts considered, just
to avoid confusion.
The fact, to have only one top level account per account type is fine
with me. H
