Bug 739571 - Matching imported transactions doesn't indicate previously matched entries

[Jesse Olmer]

I'm tackling this bug as my first contribution to the project and have
a few technical questions.

To track pending matches within the current import process there are
two main possibilities that come to mind. I'm almost sure the first is
a bad practice, but I don't want to make assumptions about the general
system architecture and use patterns. The first is that it appears the
Split on the GNCImportMatchInfo objects are somewhat persistent (I
didn't jump into the bowels of the query system, but I didn't see them
being freed anywhere in import-export). Therefore, I could piggy back
on the Split to store information about whether it was a pending match
for one of the imported transactions. This seems like a bad idea since
it breaks encapsulation of the feature, plus if these are truly
persistent throughout the application it just creates a mess and
cleanup issues.

The second route (and the one I've already started on) is to have a
new object which ref counts pending matches (essentially, a map of
match info's to their ref count and some metadata for display). An
instance of this object lives in GNCImportMainMatcher and is passed to
the GNCImportMatchPicker providing fast lookup for each match. If this
doesn't pass the sniff test please let me know.

Since this is brand new, mostly self-contained code, I'm going the C++
route with it. I'm curious what the state is of the recommended Google
Test integration. The Testing page on the wiki has a blank section for
this, and I wasn't able to locate any other examples in maint. I see
several uses in master, so maybe this isn't something that has been
merged to maint? If that's the case I can test through the C interface
to the C++ class as it's a fairly trivial object (or I can nix the C++
idea altogether if that's preferred).

Lastly, I've read the wiki on translations but I didn't see anything
about a preferred process for getting new strings translated. Is it
good enough to add the _() as documented and someone will pick it up
eventually, is a bug preferred, or something else?

Thanks!
-Jesse