[GNC-dev] Reports -- Cleanup

Tue Jan 8 12:25:33 EST 2019

On 1/7/19 8:42 PM, Adrien Monteleone wrote:
> Stephen, while I agree in principle that the reports need cleanup, as a user, I don’t want to see functionality removed, just moved. Consider the following:
>
> For example on your #1,
>
> Why do I need to see the credit split for every transaction when running the report for an expense account? Maybe I want to know where the money came from, but more likely, I want to know who I paid it to and when and how much. Maybe I’d like some 'how much' totals for the 'who to' and when ‘questions'. To have to see the other side of every transaction even for a few dozen is unnecessary clutter, imagine a report with hundreds of transactions. One purpose of a report is to condense/consolidate information. This would turn the Transaction Report into just a fancy Register Report. I might as well look at the expense register itself then run a report.

This is a case of what I thought I wrote isn't what you thought you
read!  Your argument is my argument for #2.  You shouldn't have to see
the other splits for each line.  But what I am saying is that if this
split is a debit, put it in the debit column.  If a credit, put it in
the credit column.  That way you can quickly spot a split that is
entered backwards -- "that should have been a credit but was entered as
a debit.

I agree with the unnecessary clutter.

>
> On the #2,
>
> So I shouldn’t be able to see what else might have happened in that transaction, but I always have to see both the credit and debit sides of it? How is that consistent? or possible? If I can’t see the other splits, I can’t see the balancing part of the transaction like you want in #1, or, maybe I see a debit to an expense and the credit to checking, but maybe there were other offsetting debits for other expense accounts in that transaction. Now I’m looking at an expense debit that is less than the credit line and things don’t balance at the least, and worst, now I have clutter that gives me no useful information and can’t see the info I might want to see. (such as, is there a pattern that two expenses go together?)
I agree with your sentiments given your point of view.  If you want to
see all the splits then organize the report as a transaction report
where the splits are grouped together.  Then you can see which ones are
Debit and which ones are Credit splits (and if we total both columns you
can verify that the totals are the same).
>
> I do agree however that the Transaction report is really more of a ‘master report’ of sorts. The multi-column is another. There might be others.
>
> Those should probably be either in their own sub-menu, or the only ones in the main Reports menu. Then the various useful reports one routinely needs that are based off of those masters can be in the topic specific sub-menus.
>
> I don’t see the myriad of options as ‘gold plating’ I see them as making the report more useful. (though obtuse as well)
I apologize as I was using a very specific meaning from project
management theory.  "*Gold plating* refers to the addition of any
feature not considered in the original scope plan (PMBoK) or business
case (Prince2) at any point of the *project* since it introduces a new
source of risks to the original planning i.e. additional testing,
documentation, costs, timelines, etc."
>
> Perhaps if some more routine and useful reports were created from this and added to the relevant sub-menus, less people would need the ‘master report’ though it can still be there for those who know how to wield its power.

Interesting thoughts.  Some of which have flowed past me in the last 24
hours also.  My question is how you would limit the options for a
Reconciliation Report for the user to configure while turning around and
invoking the main report module?  I am not that savvy in Scheme to know
how to do that.

The one thing we need to avoid is having the same code spread around in
4-5 different areas and having to update all when a fundamental bug or
enhancement has to be made that affects all reports. 

>
> Just my 2¢.

Postage in the US is going up 5¢ so best add in some inflation and call
if $2 now!  Appreciate your thoughts -- especially as it shows I didn't
express mine very well and you got a different picture than I was trying
to paint (my wife says I don't paint very well either)!

Let's keep talking as together we can arrive at a common point of view.

>
> Regards,
> Adrien
--Steve
>> On Jan 7, 2019, at 4:50 PM, Stephen M. Butler <kg7je at arrl.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think one of the developers here mentioned that there is a lot of
>> duplication in the reports arena.  I concur.  At first it was very
>> confusing as to which was the "correct" one.  Finally figured out none
>> where -- according to the in house SME (pronounced "smee" and standing
>> for Subject Matter Expert) and needed to roll my own.  Of which, I only
>> have the Balance Sheet sorta working like she wants it.
>>
>> Following some email exchange via the bug reporting system regarding the
>> Transaction report module, I agree that it has too many options already
>> and requires a near programmer to figure out which options need to be
>> set what way to get something close to desirable.
>>
>> Please note that I'm not a smee in this arena and, with my project
>> manager hat on, my wife barely qualifies.  There are others on this
>> mailing list better qualified who will have differing opinions. 
>>
>> However, here are my thoughts:
>>
>> 1.  A transaction report (however it is organized) should always show
>> the split amount.  I propose that the Amount (None, Single, Double)
>> option be removed and the report always produces the Amount in two
>> columns Debit to the left and Credit to the right. 
>>
>> 2.  The Multi-line versus Single-line option may add confusion.  If one
>> wants to group the splits in a transaction together, then the report
>> should be organized that way.  When one picks the multi-line option, the
>> report becomes hard to read and understand especially as the other
>> splits are not included in the totals.  I suggest that Single-line be
>> the reporting style and the multi-line (meaning -- as best I can
>> determine -- multi-splits) removed.
>>
>> These are just two of many simplifications that could be made to help
>> guide the end-user into the reports they need rather than letting them
>> create a report that is useless to them and anybody else.
>>
>> Along those lines, I see this code needing to generate the following
>> types of reports:
>>
>> A.  Transaction Journal -- this one lists the transactions within the
>> date range in date order and keeps all the splits together on the
>> report.  A printed version of the General Ledger screen (in multi-split
>> mode).
>>
>> B.  Reconciliation Report -- rather than have the user pick the
>> accounts, a first pass should show the Dates within Accounts for which
>> there were reconciliations done (with the date range selected).  Let the
>> user select one or more of these to be reported, but each selection
>> becomes its own report or page.  Usually show the transactions
>> reconciled on that date (by account and in date order) optionally
>> followed by the transactions not yet reconciled within that account.
>>
>> C.  Account Details -- here the user should pick the account(s) for
>> which the detailed transaction should be shown for the date range selected.
>>
>> There may be a couple more variants, but if we start thinking about what
>> a bookkeeper/accountant needs we can reduce the number of options
>> available and thus remove complexity from the reports (at least this
>> particular one).
>>
>> As a software engineer, I love to gold plate things.  As a project
>> manager, I realize that gold plates rarely provide the end user with
>> something useful.  Hey, but it looks good!
>>
>> So, which options on the transaction report do you never use?  Which
>> options do you always set one particular way?
>>
>> --Steve
>>
>> -- 
>> Stephen M Butler, PMP, PSM
>> Stephen.M.Butler51 at gmail.com
>> kg7je at arrl.net
>> 253-350-0166
>> -------------------------------------------
>> GnuPG Fingerprint:  8A25 9726 D439 758D D846 E5D4 282A 5477 0385 81D8
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnucash-devel mailing list
>> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

-- 
Stephen M Butler, PMP, PSM
Stephen.M.Butler51 at gmail.com
kg7je at arrl.net
253-350-0166
-------------------------------------------
GnuPG Fingerprint:  8A25 9726 D439 758D D846 E5D4 282A 5477 0385 81D8