[GNC-dev] New balsheet (and P&L report), API considerations, and (slow?) KVP in Account.cpp

[Christopher Lam]

The state of balsheet-pnl.scm, is as follows:

I think it is stable and featureful enough to be a replacement, but 
there are no tests yet to validate a transition. This may happen over 
the next few months.

It incorporates all balance-sheet.scm and income-statement.scm 
functionality with the following known differences:

  * no option to show double-column ie Asset=left, Expense/Equity=right
    (because I prefer leaving space for multiple data columns <g>)
  * no option to hide/show individual sections/their labels (eg
    Display/show asset section)
  * no display/show accounting-style rules (no space at all)
  * flatten list at depth limit (I don't understand its strategy at all
    and prefer to disable it)
  * balance-sheet.scm with Display/Parent-account-balances=none will
    disable amounts for accounts-with-children, which I think is
    nonsensical -- if an account has children, unless its amount is $0,
    it must be displayed, either recursive or multilevel.
  * choosing a common-report-currency when there are missing prices will
    now leave the amount in its original currency, instead of converting
    to $0.00
  * new balsheet will not compute unrealized gains -- from my
    understanding this doesn't belong in the balance sheet
  * I haven't coded the price source to average-cost or
    weighted-average, both of which will set a single exchange rate
    through all multicolumns -- are these options important???

Future plans:

  * I think the account-amount calculating functions are good enough to
    be reused to replace net-charts, category-barchart etc.
  * Hopefully the unintelligible old code can then be dumped for good.

C


On 03/07/18 15:41, Geert Janssens wrote:
> Op dinsdag 3 juli 2018 02:57:50 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
>> Hi Stephen, Dave &al
>>
>> Thank you -
>>
>> Dave - the changes are merely cosmetic therefore easy.
>>
>> It sounds there are still 2 desired presentational types - (1) Dave's
>> approach = *recursive-bal* - 'parent' accounts generally collect their
>> children account amounts; if they also have their own amount, the latter is
>> rendered on the next line, indented as a child account. (2) Stephen's
>> approach = *multilevel-bal* - parent accounts' amounts are hidden unless
>> they exist.
>>
> I'm not sure I understand the difference here. Isn't this expressing the same
> thing twice in different ways ? Perhaps I'm missing a subtlety in the English
> language...
>
> Or is the difference whether the totals are shown above or below the children
> ?
>
> Geert
>
>