On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Craig Earls <[email protected]> wrote:
> I will answer this on a laptop. > > edger will scan all of the account lines in the file and structure them in > a tree. The "root" of the tree is the least specific, down to the "leaves" > of the tree which it the most specific. > > I don't completely understand the account hierarchy you are using. There > seems to be some redundancy in the structure, this could hurt you. > The account structure that I am using is based on this document: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/rc4088/general-index-financial-information-gifi.html I copied the document a number of years ago into a file and then started adding my own extensions. My present list of accounts runs to over 35 pages. The account structure was set up to get me maximum clarity in my transaction logging. Each product owned is trackable this is for business management. The human readable form on the account (the words) is there to make it very easy to read what the account is for. There seldom is any hierarchy in these word(s) or phrase. > But I think you have answered your question, your breakdown should be > > 9350 - meta account > 10 - 1st level sub-account > 51 - designates fuel > 01 - designates a particular kind of fuel > >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 7:03 PM, o1bigtenor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Craig Earls <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes. You would have to use the whole account name down to the level you >>>> want. For example: >>>> >>>> Ledger reg Expense: fuel - gas - clear: 9350: 10: 51: 01 >>>> >>>> With whatever time limits you want gives you only what is in that >>>> complete account >>>> >>>> Ledger reg Expense: fuel - gas - clear: 9350 >>>> >>>> Gives you everything under 9350 >>>> >>>> OK - - - but fuel - gas - clear actually refers to the whole number - >>> - >>> all of 9350: 10: 51: 01. 9350 as a 'meta' account (if I'm allowed to use >>> that term) >>> is all of the sub-accounts under 9350 rolled into one. >>> >>> Does this mean that I should be writing the accounts as something like >>> this: >>> >>> 9350: 10: 51: 01 : fuel - gas - clear >>> >>> where breakdown is something like: >>> >>> 9350 - meta account >>> 10 - 1st level sub-account >>> 51 - designates fuel >>> 01 - designates a particular kind of fuel >>> >>> >>> For the second part (your query) could it be written as >>> ledger reg Expense: 9350 >>> >>> ie can I query without using the text portion? >>> (That would be the easiest for combining the sub-accounts back into >>> their 'tax' >>> accounts (which in this case is '9350'). >>> >>> Thanking you for your assistance and consideration! >>> >>> Dee >>> >>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Ledger" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Craig, Corona De Tucson, AZ >> [image: missile_flyout] >> enderw88.wordpress.com >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ledger" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > The text portion you had, "fuel - gas - clear" seems to repeat the > numerical structure. But, when I looked more closely at the transaction > you had above "fuel" didn't seem to correlate to "10". > > What I am trying to discover right now is what sequence to 'write' the codes. 1 . Should I be writing the code like this: Expense: fuel - gas - clear: 9350: 10: 51: 01 or: Expense: 9350: 10: 51: 01: fuel - gas - clear or does it even matter? I just took some time and tried using your suggested query. Really fascinating - - - like seriously!!!! 9350 is one of my 'busier' accounts (a few pages of responses to the query) so I chose some other accounts and I find that I don't need to change the periods used as account dividers to colons the queries are giving me what I would expect as results. Absolutely fascinating. (My question(s) have given me some ideas for what may be useful for others - possibly. If I write up examples (trying to keep them somewhat generic) imo they might even be useful for addition to the manual. Would that be of interest for the 'dev team' ?) So thank you for bearing with me and your assistance! Dee -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ledger" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
