Budget report

[Colin Law]

2009/8/4 Forest Bond <forest at alittletooquiet.net>:
> Hi Phil,
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 12:02:07PM -0400, Phil Longstaff wrote:
>> The budget report is my current itch, so I've been upgrading it.
>
> ...
>
> I'd like to see the budget reporting improved as much as anyone else, and I'm
> glad that you are looking at it.  However, the semantics of budget data have not
> been clearly established, as I highlighted in a comment on bug #570895:
>
>  My current understanding of budget numbers is that if A and B are expense
>  accounts and B is a child account of A and both A and B have numbers entered
>  for a given period in the budget, the total expenses for that period is
>  A[period] + B[period].  In other words, A[period] doesn't *override*
>  B[period].

+1 on this.  To clarify further If a user enters a budget for A and B
then the A budget should be that applying to splits entered directly
for account A and the B budget is that applying to those entered
directly for account B.  Exactly as if they were not parent and child
in fact.

>  This is how things are handled in BIS, anyway.  I don't think the
>  correct behavior is documented anywhere.  This may be part of a larger design
>  discussion, so feel free to move it to the ML if you think it is appropriate.
>
> I'd really like to see some agreement on this before the budget reports get much
> further.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Forest
> --
> Forest Bond
> http://www.alittletooquiet.net
> http://www.pytagsfs.org
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFKd65kRO4fQQdv5AwRArcJAKChtqqoINandys0Jly18Xte9HG3iwCgvHYj
> MY/KvuaokEmaWreG2HN17ks=
> =wnga
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>
>