Dear Devs

The more I consider (b)udget transactions the more I feel it is the right solution. See for an example of a report with these "b"udget and regular transactions. This demonstrates regular $50 monthly budgeting, and quarterly $300 spending, with 1 overspending, and 1 underspending. It also works with closing transactions... which are either enabled/disabled according to a random switch. The chart can also demonstrate the metaphorical envelope. I think this can easily be hacked into code.

The dilemma is to consider how to modify the schema to achieve this:

option (1) reuse (v)oided transactions which can ensure the datafile is backward-compatible and the balances are not affected in previous version, with a kvp flag on the transactions, to identify budgetary transfers. This will be similar to how closing txns are flagged. Advantages - are that existing code will count the split amounts as zero. Previous versions will display the transfers as "v" txns. Disadvantage - will be budget transactions being treated similar to voided transactions, in the UI code and will require special handling. Accessing budgetary amounts will need mechanism similar to xaccSplitVoidFormerValue.

option (2) add "b" for budget transactions as a clean slate for 3.0 datafiles onwards.
Advantage - clear transaction-type.
Disadvantage - datafile not compatible with previous versions. Requires special handling within xaccAccountRecomputeBalance to ignore them.

option (3) add these transactions in a separate part of the datafile, outside the accounts splitlist.
Major Disadvantage - requires numerous code, UI and schema changes.

Either way I'd be grateful if some pointers could be offered? Even if code, UI and reports are not completed in time for 3.0, it would be nice to formalize the schema 3.0 release?

I may be able to do TDD for this @rgmerk


On 01/02/18 22:45, Adrien Monteleone wrote:
On Feb 1, 2018, at 8:22 AM, Christopher Lam<>  wrote:

Hi Adrien,

 From reviewing the code, I still believe the (b)udget transactions system 
works better. The current code calculates all Reconciled/Cleared/Unreconciled 
balances on the fly, and it'll be pretty easy to add one for Budget balances. 
If I'm right, a book with large number of transactions over years will require 
perhaps 20 (b)udget transactions per year, which will hardly be straining the 
datafile or the code.

It is also compatible with the suggestion for "manually triggered SX" or 
"transaction templates”.
That enhancement was only for an actual transaction that moves money from a 
parent to sub-accounts. I didn’t intend that as a separate layer ‘virtual’ 
transaction. But yes, I see it could work for both.

The only feature that the envelope system doesn't support is an 'expiry date' 
for the budget -- some people may prefer monthly/quarterly/annual budgets, and 
so far I can't think how this would work. The register would really just need 
color coding to identify 'balance too close to budget' situations.
My understanding is that the envelopes don’t expire, it’s a retained ‘savings’ 
so I get they don’t have a date. That doesn’t preclude budgeting by period 
though. Say you set a spending budget of $100/$300/$1200 for dining out 
(monthly, quarterly, yearly) then you use that as your envelope goal. As you 
allocate, you can see if you have hit your goal. (if so, the allocation stops) 
If you end up spending under budget, that money remains allocated. (unless you 
flow it somewhere else) You’ll just have a head start in your savings plan when 
the next period cycles around. An additional calculation would be needed here. 
At any point in time, you’d need to see the remaining goal to be saved for.

There should also be a mechanism for letting the user decide how to control the 
allocation or flow of money to the envelopes. This could be a ‘stop’ situation 
based on if either the monthly, quarterly, or yearly goals are reached. Someone 
might want to set a high % to be allocated until perhaps one or two quarters 
are saved up, then back off a bit. Or they might want to leave it high until 
the goal is reached, but keep saving at a lower level. (that part is good for 
emergency funds or debt retirement) Or they might want to only allocate each 
month until the goal is reached (which might be the first pay check) and then 
stop until the month rolls over.

I know this is sounding more complicated, but if the user can’t control their 
savings rate and plan, they probably aren’t going to use the feature much.

By the way, I do like the idea of some sort of color warning with respect to 
hitting budget limits.
Try opening a register and see View > Filter by... > Status you'll see all 5 statuses are 
ticked. If by default the suggested "b" transactions are disabled then the average 
user will never see them.
That changes things entirely. I see no UX issues then.
My suggestion also obviates the need for the shadow accounts as your 

IMHO Using a separate kvp system will lead to performance issues similar to 
current Budget on Windows.
I’ve heard there was some problems there but didn’t realize that was the cause. 
I wonder why that is. Since the user doesn’t have to be exposed to the budget 
transactions by default, I don’t see an issue changing to that method then. 
Whatever is most efficient.

On that note you might need two status levels. A ‘b’ for ‘budget’ to handle the 
current functionality and an ‘e/s’ for ‘envelopes/savings’ to handle savings 
toward those budget goals.
I'm rather tempted to hack the code to calculate the budgeted amounts by 
abusing the current (v)oid transactions UI, and it seems very doable :-o
Let me know when you do. I’d be interested in seeing the work and in testing. 
And I’ll be happy to help where I can.



On 01/02/18 22:05, Adrien Monteleone wrote:
On Jan 31, 2018, at 2:48 PM, Phil Longstaff<>  wrote:

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Adrien Monteleone <  
<>> wrote:

On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Christopher Lam <  
<>> wrote:

Hi Matt- I thought this should move to the devel list, because of technical 
details, and this discussion will be very speculative.

I had a thought about how envelope budgeting could work: "divide your paycheck into 
separate envelopes for different purposes".

A solution: *Create another type of transaction.*

There's already u(n)reconciled, (c)leared, (y)reconciled, (v)oid transactions. 
And (f)rozen I believe is unused. Let's create a new type - (b)udget. But the 
balances are handled differently.

It would require some UI and calculations changes --

1. The account budget balance is always maintained similarly to 
Running/Reconciled/Cleared Balances. But it would count all previous 
split-values *and* the (b)udget split amounts. However the budget running 
balance is not shown in the default register. This means, existing 
balances/register are unchanged.
Having transactions in an account register that don’t affect the balance is 
going to be very problematic. I think this would really confuse users.

I would think budget levels for each expense account could be exposed in the 
properties/preferences for each one.

That's basically how it's done now. It uses the kvp (key-value pair) mechanism 
and each account has a kvp per budget per period with the budget amount.
But I see they aren’t exposed in the Account Edit window. The only way to see 
what was budgeted is to open the budget module, or to see what’s left is to run 
a budget report. And even that part is limited as it’s only a all-or-nothing 
figure for the year, not year-to-date.

The allocation of budget money would have to be handled with a special dialog on demand, or as part of an income/asset account preferences with percentages/formulas. (essentially a template transaction that fires when entries are made in that account)

We already have a budgeting mechanism to set how much we *want* to spend on a 
particular expense.

What we’re discussing here is a way to ‘save up’ funds received for each of 
those expenses.

If I understand correctly, the budget module uses hidden accounts to keep track 
of everything. I would think these same accounts, or other hidden accounts 
paired with them, could do the job.

This is incorrect. It uses kvp (key-value pair) structures attached to each 
Thanks for clearing that up. Certainly, that seems the more sane route. I would 
think another set of kvp could be implemented to handle the envelope system 
then. One set to hold the amount already allocated and another to hold the 
allocation formula. The original budget pair could be used as the goal.

gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel mailing list

gnucash-devel mailing list

Reply via email to