The state of balsheet-pnl.scm, is as follows:
I think it is stable and featureful enough to be a replacement, but
there are no tests yet to validate a transition. This may happen over
the next few months.
It incorporates all balance-sheet.scm and income-statement.scm
functionality with the following known differences:
* no option to show double-column ie Asset=left, Expense/Equity=right
(because I prefer leaving space for multiple data columns <g>)
* no option to hide/show individual sections/their labels (eg
Display/show asset section)
* no display/show accounting-style rules (no space at all)
* flatten list at depth limit (I don't understand its strategy at all
and prefer to disable it)
* balance-sheet.scm with Display/Parent-account-balances=none will
disable amounts for accounts-with-children, which I think is
nonsensical -- if an account has children, unless its amount is $0,
it must be displayed, either recursive or multilevel.
* choosing a common-report-currency when there are missing prices will
now leave the amount in its original currency, instead of converting
to $0.00
* new balsheet will not compute unrealized gains -- from my
understanding this doesn't belong in the balance sheet
* I haven't coded the price source to average-cost or
weighted-average, both of which will set a single exchange rate
through all multicolumns -- are these options important???
Future plans:
* I think the account-amount calculating functions are good enough to
be reused to replace net-charts, category-barchart etc.
* Hopefully the unintelligible old code can then be dumped for good.
C
On 03/07/18 15:41, Geert Janssens wrote:
Op dinsdag 3 juli 2018 02:57:50 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
Hi Stephen, Dave &al
Thank you -
Dave - the changes are merely cosmetic therefore easy.
It sounds there are still 2 desired presentational types - (1) Dave's
approach = *recursive-bal* - 'parent' accounts generally collect their
children account amounts; if they also have their own amount, the latter is
rendered on the next line, indented as a child account. (2) Stephen's
approach = *multilevel-bal* - parent accounts' amounts are hidden unless
they exist.
I'm not sure I understand the difference here. Isn't this expressing the same
thing twice in different ways ? Perhaps I'm missing a subtlety in the English
language...
Or is the difference whether the totals are shown above or below the children
?
Geert
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
