-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sonntag, 5. Januar 2003 17:16, Derek Atkins wrote: > > The edit-exchange-rate dialog then knows the exact from-amount in > > currency A and the exakt to-amount in currency B, and the dialog can > > offer to either edit precisely this from-amount, or the to-amount, or the > > rate in between, just like the stock-account register does. > > Christian, did you run the example that I suggested you run, where you > edit the amount field and then pull up the dialog. Is that the > behavior you want? If so, I can easily _make_ that the default > behavior...
Err.. (browse browse) you are referring to this example: > As per bug 102161, open the account as suggested, and also open the > jump account to wait the other side. Make sure you're in expanded > mode (as suggested in the bug report), 'touch' the amount field (edit > it -- delete the '10' and then re-insert '10'), bring up the exchange > dialog, change the to-amount to '7', click ok, then "enter" the > transaction. Yes, this is _exactly_ the behaviour I was looking for. At least when specifying a "to-amount" in the exchange rate dialog. > Right now the dialog is not touching the transaction at all. All it > does is return a new exchange-rate which gets stored until you > actually "save" the transaction. All the editing logic is in the > register (in particular split-register-model-save, in the > save_debcred_cell() and save_cells() functions). > > The real question is: what does it mean to edit the exchange rate? > Are you trying to change the split's amount or the split's value? I > think that is the key question. It get's a but more complicated when > you are editing from the "other account", but the question remains: > which gnc_numeric are you trying to change, the split->amount or the > split->value? In a split in the stock/currency-account register, you see both the split->amount *and* the split->value and the exchange rate. I was wondering whether it is possible to design an "edit exchange rate" dialog with the same editing options. Otherwise I totally agree -- it is not clear what the user wants to change. > Note that this _changes_ based on your view of the transaction. Even > when you are looking at a basic ledger, you sometimes change the value > and sometimes change the amount based upon the current view. But I > think we both agree that the way the basic-cell view works is > "correct", no? I agree. The way the basic-cell view works is as expected. However, I'd be even more happy if the from-amount (i.e. split->amount) can be changed in the same "edit exchange rate" dialog as well. Again, the behaviour I'm looking for is just a mirror of the stock/currency-account register, where I can edit all amount/price/value in the same window/dialog and I get asked which one of the three should be recalculated based on the other two. > I think the only thing we're talking about right now is how to deal > with expanded transactions. In particular I think the key is whether > we are changing the amount or value of the current split. In expanded > view I still maintain that it should NOT change anything in the > _OTHER_ split. Yes, and probably you're right here. It just took me some time to understand this kind of behaviour, but eventually it might be just the "right thing" :-) > Currently I am assuming that when you Edit Exchange Rate you want to > change the split->amount. The issue here is that what this does > VISUALLY is different based upon your view. If you are viewing the > txn from an account that matches the txn->currency, then it will work > how I think you want it to (namely you wont see a change, but it will > change the numbers in the other account). If you are viewing the txn > from an account that does NOT match the txn->currency, it changes the > amount in the current split (because you're viewing "modified" > numbers, and the modification factor just changed). In both cases I > am changing the "split->amount", but the difference is what is being > viewed. > > If you ALWAYS want the "former" behavior, regardless of view, then I > can do that. As I said, you can see the behavior from the test I > suggested. If that is the behavior you want, I can do that. You have > yet to answer that, or even explain what kind of behavior you want to > see (other than trying to limit the functionality). I would want this "former" behaviour, or in other word: From how multi-currency stuff worked in 1.6.x, I'd expect this former behaviour, regardless of view. Christian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iQCVAwUBPhi+aWXAi+BfhivFAQFCDQP/QvfPq7vyk9d+BpJox1GBIHio4MI9NmdD lzVO7+sFjFV4h5Mi4tBzfjxr9P2KP+xQQKs9NEGx4Yv1pSiBZ89zzoEWaO04LvUc NlQiA8T2YGMusdIVKrBZ6714bgs71A7JdsU1MRGGzy+Wjw56XFH8p47LSNnZM1Iu v4FGmotU9i4= =aYMg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
