Any Interest in Configurable Imbalance name

[Donald Allen]

On Jan 4, 2008 12:26 PM, Jason Ahrens <jason at cougarcorp.net> wrote:
> Donald Allen said the following on 04/01/2008 9:04 AM:
> > Did you ever use v1.8.x? I'm trying to find out if you ever
> > experienced the behavior some of us (Derek, Adam, me) are advocating
> > returning to.
> >
>
> Briefly. I remember the little square "not-balanced" indicators that
> came up in the splits that weren't properly balanced (2.2 also shows
> those squares). I don't recall what would happen if I didn't properly
> balance things out before "moving on".

You didn't "move on". Gnucash insisted on your fixing the transaction,
getting it balanced, before allowing you to enter it. That's the
behavior we're advocating returning to, at least optionally.

I do have a question for the developers about this: I have a scheduled
transaction that records my mortgage payment every month. Gnucash
computes the principal and interest for each payment, and sometimes
sometimes round-off error causes a $.01 imbalance. This needs to be
addressed before returning to the 1.8.x strict-transaction-balancing
regimem. I would advocate either seeing to it that amortization
schedules be computed so that principal+interest=payment, by making
some (optionable?) default choice about what to do when round-off
error makes this not true, or ask the user where to put the penny, so
things balance (much same way it asks you whether to recalculate
number of shares, price, or value when something about a stock
transaction changes).

/Don



>
>
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>