On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:19:16PM -0500, David Reiser wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > >>> a few lines above the scm that appeared in the last report, I get: >>> >>> * 17:59:57 DEBUG <gnc.scm> b-list is ((#<<gnc-numeric> num: 4189799520000 >>> denom: 204700000000> . #<<gnc-numeric> num: 72682214900000000 denom: >>> 418979952000000>)) b-units is #<<gnc-numeric> num: 0 denom: 10000> >>> b-value >>> is #<<gnc-numeric> num: 0 denom: 100> b-method is average-basis >> >> You have a txn with no shares and no value in the split that touches >> this account. What is the other side of that transaction? What are you >> trying to do with that txn? >> >> It's a real bug, no doubt, but I want to make sure it gets handled >> properly -- there is no code to handle that case, duh, so its >> <#unspecified>. So if you can find that txn, and tell what it looks >> like and what its trying to do, then I can fix it straight-away. > > > OK. My error. But the register wasn't complaining, either. What happened > was: 3 years ago, I couldn't figure out why my tracking of my wife's > TIAA-CREF contributions left me 0.002 shares low in one of her three funds. > So I added 0.002 shares at zero cost. Probably would have worked out right > if I had used the stock split wizard, but I didn't think of that. It has > been tracking fine since (and I now import all the transactions via > ofx...). > > It turns out I had both the 0.002 shares and the 0 value balancing split > coming out of the stock fund account. (Remember, the register wasn't > complaining, and no imbalance account.). Once I put the $0 split into the > parent 'brokerage' account, the report works.
well, its still a bug (fix going up tonight) in that there should have been *something* done, so that it wouldn't spit out <#unspecified>. Thanks for finding it! > > Can you tell me why the advanced portfolio report gives me transaction > based calcs even though the preference for price list use is selected? With > transaction based calculations, the retirement accounts all show 0% total > return (which isn't what I was expecting). I think that is broken at the moment. It only gets a price from the txn if there is no price in the PriceDB. Close but not quite... someone (me?) should file a bug so I remember to fix it. > > Thanks for all your work on the report. It is now fast enough to be usable. > Before I never bothered to figure out the options because any change took > so long to test. Well, thanks! I'm surprised you're seeing a speed increase, I wasn't in search of that. Don't hesitate to find other bugs ;) A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
