QIF importer treatment of zero-sum split transactions

[Charles Day]

On Jan 9, 2008 9:29 PM, Ian Lewis <ianmlewis at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/1/8, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu>:
>
> > Quoting Ian Lewis <ianmlewis at gmail.com>:
> >
> > >> Would it make sense to provide a boolean checkbox somewhere in the
> > >> druid if we find one of these transactions to ask the user how to
> > >> treat them?
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I'm not sure the user would know unless you start
> > asking
> > > stuff like, "Was this QIF created with Money Dance or <insert bad QIF
> > making
> > > Quicken version here>?"
> >
> > Sure they would.   You just have to provide the right context.
> > For example:
> >
> > "The Importer found a zero-balance transaction that looks like this:
> > [insert transaction information here].  Is this correct or are the
> > amounts inverted?"  [Correct] [Inverted]
>
>
> Yah, but users get confused about the signs because they are different
> based on which direction the transaction is going. Something that looks to
> them like it's inverted might actually be not and the other way around.
> Probably you're on the right track but some better wording and/or some
> thought as to what goes in the [insert transaction information here] part
> would be in good.
>
> Ian
>

Going through the work of creating a clear and readable pop up question for
the user may be overkill at this point. After all, we're only talking about
zero-sum transactions that ALSO have zero in the "T" line. These are
absolute nonsense, because the if the "T" line is zero then the transaction
has been deliberately entered into an account that is not actually involved
in the transaction. Until there is an example of someone actually using
these things *and* needing the signs reversed on them, we may be focusing on
an exception that exists in theory but doesn't appear in practice.

.02

Cheers,
Charles