I got curious about this too a year ago, and at the time I think the 
opinion I formed was: 
- It's okay to have transactions with multiple postings, Martin's made 
plugins 
like 
https://aumayr.github.io/beancount-docs-static/_modules/beancount/plugins/split_expenses.html
 
that will create 3+-posting transactions out of 2-posting transactions.
- It's the responsibility of whatever tool is reading/filtering your 
beancount file (e.g. fava) to appropriately deal with handling multiple 
postings. Particular to Fava, there's been some talk of this in 
https://github.com/beancount/fava/issues/812 , where one possible solution 
would be to display things better. 

The other option, if you have transactions with just 
one-source/multiple-sinks or one-sink/multiple-sources (but not 
multiple-sources/multiple-sinks) would be to have a beancount plugin that 
will convert transactions like: 

2019-09-06 * "Paid for ..."
  Expenses:Business:Company1        200 USD
  Expenses:Business:Company2        200 USD
  Assets:Cash                 -400 USD

-to- 

2019-09-06 * "Paid for ..."
  Expenses:Business:Company1        200 USD
  Assets:Cash                 -200 USD

2019-09-06 * "Paid for ..."
  Expenses:Business:Company2        200 USD
  Assets:Cash                 -200 USD


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 7:44:01 AM UTC-7, [email protected] 
wrote:
>
> Guys hi,
>
> As the title says i wonder if it's bad practice to use multiple postings.
>
> Sometimes i use transactions with multiple postings, example:
>
> 2019-09-06 * "Paid for ..."
>   Expenses:Business:Company1        200 USD
>   Expenses:Business:Company2        200 USD
>   Assets:Cash                 -400 USD
>
> or 
>
> 2019-09-06 * "Paid for ... & Received"
>   Expenses:Business:Company1        200 USD
>   Expenses:Business:Company2        200 USD
>   Income:Business:Company1          -50 USD
>   Assets:Cash                 -350 USD
>
> It worked great for my needs, but now that i'd like to filter 
> expenses/income only related to Company1 fava filter 
> "any(account:"Expenses:Business:Company1)" 
> does not work for this type of transactions.
>
> So i wonder if it's better practice to use simple transactions like
>
> 2019-09-06 * "Paid for ..."
>   Expenses:Business:Company1        200 USD
>   Assets:Cash                 -200 USD
>
> ......
>
> So one can be more flexible with filters, etc if need arises.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Beancount" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/875b2e9c-bca1-44ca-bfac-fec530175830%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to