Gnucash reports

[Geert Janssens]

Hi Peter,

I briefly checked your new branch and ran a number of tests on it (including a make check). 
Your unit tests work fine and are a nice addition.

I compared some old and new reports. I see no difference, except for an important speed 
improvement.

I will wait for your style cleanups. Other than that I think this is ready to be merged IMO.

Just let me know when you are ready.

Geert


On Thursday 23 May 2013 23:23:25 Peter Broadbery wrote:
> Hi Geert,
> 
> I've taken your suggestions and rebased the code into a new branch,
> pab/topic/report-rewrite/v3.
> This branch updates to current truck (I had to add a fixup commit at
> the end), and renames the files you mentioned (now collectors and
> report-collectors).
> 
> I think there's one more round to the final version unless anyone says
> otherwise, mostly to cleanup a couple of style issues.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Geert Janssens
> 
> <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:
> > Peter,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I have pulled your branch in my local repository and tested from there. I
> > haven't run all the new reports, but I did play with the net worth bar
> > chart. When I run it over my complete data file, the time to generate the
> > report drops from 25 seconds to 5. That's a pretty nice result !
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I looked a bit deeper at your branch. There's not much I can say on the
> > code itself. It looks ok and seems to do the job (will test some more
> > right before it gets committed).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I would just suggest some cleanup of the commits themselves. IMO the first
> > 6 commits can easily be squashed together. They all do the same thing,
> > but for different reports.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > And at some point you add a file called reports-2.scm, which gets
> > installed
> > in the standard-reports directory. That seems to be an odd location for
> > that file. I would rather expect it next to streamers.scm in
> > guile-modules/gnucash/report/report-system/. But perhaps I'm completely
> > misinterpreting this. Would it make sense to call the script collector.scm
> > rather than the generic reports-2.scm ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > And lastly: you have readded the old reports. This is useful for
> > comparison
> > but we don't need the two versions in the final code. The users will only
> > want to use your improved reports.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > That's my feedback for now.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm looking forward to the final result !
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Geert
> > 
> > On Saturday 18 May 2013 15:23:10 Peter Broadbery wrote:
> >> Hi Geert,
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thanks for taking a look at the code. Status update: I'm not actively
> >> 
> >> changing anything at the moment, the only thing not committed is a
> >> 
> >> small optimisation to the way %done is calculated.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I'll try to split the major commits and whitespace changes (apologies,
> >> 
> >> I blame emacs), and improve some of the commit messages; What else
> >> 
> >> needs to be done prior to getting this merged?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The work so far updates the category reports (Expense/Assets/... over
> >> 
> >> time) and the net worth barchart -- these were the two bits of code
> >> 
> >> which really did badly on my data. As you've probably seen, the major
> >> 
> >> changes were:
> >>