wrong starting balance on reconcile

[hendrik at topoi.pooq.com]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 10:45:12AM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:15:53AM -0500, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 08:16:06AM -0500, carpetnailz wrote:
> > > Thanks for various suggestions I received.
> > > 
> > > I decided the problem arose because somehow an $11 transaction from a
> > > year-and-a-half ago had come "unreconciled"--I was able to see this by
> > > checking with one of the saved early versions (nice that Gnucash saves
> > > all those versions). I don't know if it was some kind of inadvertent
> > > keystroke on my part or some program glitch. But re-clearing that item
> > > balanced things out. 
> > 
> > It would be interesting to find all the ways in which a reconciled item 
> > can become unreconciled -- certainly it shouldn't be possible by an 
> > inadvertent keystroke.  I don't know what version of gnucash you are 
> > using, but the following seem to me to be possibilities:
> > 
> >   (1) You make another change in a reconciled transaction, maybe 
> > changing the spelling in the memo field.  While you are doing this, an 
> > inadvertent keystroke changes the reconciliation field.  When you 
> > subsequently press enter you get a warning about a change to a 
> > reconciled transaction, and ignore it, without realizing that there are 
> > more changes than you are aware of.
> > 
> >    The risk of this could be mitigated if a visually different warnings 
> > were to be used for changes that can actually change ta reconciled 
> > balance and those that change other aspects of a trconciled transaction.
> 
> It appears that there is no differentiation made between the types of
> changes made to a transaction. Certain changes don't matter,
> obviously, and may not even warrant a warning. Changes to the memo,
> description, notes, or number fields (like check number) really
> shouldn't matter. Changes to amounts or accounts should be a big bold
> flashing lights and bells warning. 
> 
> I think what you're referring to here is a situation where we get used
> to seeing a warning about changing a reconciled transaction in
> situations where it doesn't matter so that in situations where it
> *does* matter its not noteworthy enough to cause a user to reexamine
> their work.
> 
> I just played with this in svn and the warning pops as soon as you try
> to enter a field in a reconciled split. Once you agree to the changing
> of the split, you can do whatever you like to it. Essentially, you're
> agreeing to change the split without necessarily the intention of
> changing the important parts of the split. But because it doesn't care
> what kind of change you're making, it becomes trivial at that point to
> make inadvertent adverse changes. Note though that there is still a
> warning thrown for changing the reconciled status of the split. That's
> good.
> 
>  It might be better to allow entry into the split without warning and
> then subsequently examine what the changes are before committing the
> transaction. Then a warning could be thrown for changes that actually
> matter. The warning becomes much more relevant and may help prevent
> arbitrary click-through.
> 
> As a user, I don't really care if I change the memo, description,
> notes, num or maybe even the date field. I *do* care if I change the
> amount, status, or account. Warning me for the ones I don't care about
> makes me lazy and click without thinking... 
> 
> just .02
> 
> 
> A

Or the ones that really matter could be a warning message written on 
a flaming skull.  You might notice that!

The ones that reallt matter are the ones that could change the 
reconciled balance of an account.

-- hendrik

> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.