I know in general the order of records in a beancount input file doesn't
matter, but if I have an asset acquisition and a transfer of that asset
later on the same day, things get confused if the transfer record appears
first.
E.g., this works:
2020-01-01 pad Assets:BrokerA:USD Equity:Opening-Balances
2020-01-02 balance Assets:BrokerA:USD 100.00 USD
2020-02-01 * "Buy some ASSET"
Assets:BrokerA:ASSET 10.00 ASSET {10.00 USD}
Assets:BrokerA:USD -100.00 USD
2020-02-01 * "Transfer ASSET"
Assets:BrokerA:ASSET -5.00 ASSET {USD}
Assets:BrokerB:ASSET 5.00 ASSET {USD}
(using the "{USD}" cost marker workaround to transfer cost basis)
However, if I reverse the order of the two records, I get the error:
Too many missing numbers for currency group 'USD'
and if I remove the {USD} cost markers on the transfer, I get the booking
error:
No position matches "Posting(account='Assets:BrokerA:ASSET', units=10.00
ASSET, cost=CostSpec(number_per=Decimal('10.00'), number_total=None,
currency='USD', date=None, label=None, merge=False), price=None, flag=None,
meta={...})" against balance (-5.00 ASSET)
I've seen some discussion of these errors in the context of tracking cost
basis among transfers, but I don't fully understand where things are at.
Brainstorming workarounds:
- hack the physical ordering to respect original tx timestamps
- artificially book transfers a day late (but that will break if there are
further actions on that asset on the same day as the actual transfer)
- ....?
thanks,
eric
--
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/CAFXPr0sbHcONVU9R7b9PMFxoDoiDaFxB4O%2BJqOOsJVpJO8M2oQ%40mail.gmail.com.
