[GNC-dev] About 3.9 and reconciliation balances

[Adrien Monteleone]

I don’t see #1 as ‘forever’ but ‘until a better option can be crafted’.

#2 gives flexibility. To reduce confusion, should it be selected by default? (only those who intentionally need to reconcile future dates are the users who’ll have to grok it) 

How viable is:

3b. Add this to the Check & Repair process already in the Actions Menu. Does the book feature need to be set without further input? (is that the part that prevents the book from being read from <3.10?)

Regards,
Adrien

> On Apr 9, 2020 w15d100, at 2:25 AM, Christopher Lam <christopher.lck at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Regarding reverting:
> 
> It is too difficult to create a UI to modify reconciled dates. Options to
> fix this are:
> 
> 1. roll back this change and tolerate the invalid data. This means any
> progress on that matter is hindered forever.
> 
> 2. allow this change depending on a user-selectable book property "Use
> strict reconcile date balances".
> Pros: This means the book can be read/written by any recent version. See
> "Use split action for num" as a similar example.
> Cons: The toggled property can be a confusing option for new users.
> 
> 3. allow this change depending on a non-user-selectable book feature "Use
> strict reconcile date balances".
> Pros: This feature can be set by a menu item. It triggers one-time
> verification of all reconciled dates, instructing users to
> correct/re-reconcile previous reconciled-dates, and sets the book feature
> if all dates seem correct.
> Cons: This means the book can only be read by 3.10 onwards.
>