Scheduled Transactions

[Tom Browder]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Josh Sled <jsled at asynchronous.org> wrote:
> "Tom Browder" <tom.browder at gmail.com> writes:
>> I would like to see the scheduled transactions (sx) capability
>> enhanced (see enhancement bug # 521285) to be more like Quicken.  I
...
> Why is a split-pane in the Account tab better than the existing
> since-last-run (SLR) dialog (or maybe moving that dialog into a tab)?

Probably no better--that's just the way Quicken does it.  In fact, I
think I like your tab idea better.

> Do you really need to see both things at once (a main motivation for a
> split-pane)?  Otherwise, I fear the page wouldn't be big enough to see
> either.

Yes, I do:  I'm used to entering one scheduled transaction at a time
as I enter transactions into my various accounts (particularly my
checking account register).  But looking at the sx tab and flipping
back and forth to the pertinent account tab should work fine.

> What's the benefit of splitting up the upcoming transactions across
> separate tabs (by account)?  Instead, maybe, allowing an Account-based
> filter on the existing SLR page?

Just to unclutter the sx display--I really used scheduled transactions
a lot in Quicken (e.g., quarterly dividends for stocks).

Filters would work, and keep each filter result in its own new
tab--lazy evaluation results saved for the session.  But rather than
doing one filter at a time I would just split into accounts from the
get go (or maybe a selection on a per account basis, or maybe a
user-preference for persistent settings).

> One thing that people regularly ask for is – in the editor for a
> particular SX – to see the upcoming instances, so that they may quickly
> schedule something forthcoming.  This should be pretty easy to do, by
> simply generating the instance model through some configurable date in
> the future (30 days?  60 days?  drop down?  as a function of the
> frequency of the SX?).  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to
> just generate the instance model for a single SX, but that should be
> straightforward to add in.

I'll be glad to investigate if I get anywhere on the other needs.

> Anyways, I'm happy to help, but my response time might not be very low.

Thanks for the helpful words, Josh, and I understand the time thing!

Regards,

-Tom