Budget report with a different format

[Geert Janssens]

On Wednesday 08 December 2010, David T. wrote:
> (smacks himself on forehead and says  "Oh! Right!)
> 
> I made a few changes; see what you think. I think it's a little clearer.
> 
> David
> 
Yes, your changes make things clearer. Thank you !

You have added a FIXME for the version that first requires 'load' instead of 
'load-from-path'. I don't know the first version that has this, but I'm pretty 
sure it's much older than 2.2.9.

In the original wiki text I changed refers to an old mailing list thread from 
2007 [1], which talks about version 2.0.x. In fact, I notice you responded to 
that thread :) I have updated the wiki page to indicate it is for older 
versions.

Even in that thread, the conflict between the report's module definition and 
'load-from-path' already existed. But instead of using 'load' the thread 
suggests to remove the module definition. But the module definition has been 
added explicitely to avoid namespace conflicts, so removing it in custom 
reports is no longer recommended.

I can't remember exactly where I found the 'load' solution, but I preferred it 
over 'load-from-path' because it allows to keep the formal report structure, 
including the module definition. Other than the namespace conflict thing, this 
is also useful if you are creating a new report that will at one point in time 
be included in GnuCash (like Phill's budget report). Not having to remove/add 
module definitions when moving reports to and from your local .gnucash 
directory reduces the opportunities for human error.

On the other hand, load-from-path probably still works as well if the module 
definition is removed.

Because the load method is cleaner, I chose to keep it as the only documented 
solution in the wiki to avoid unnecessary confusion. A small line indicating 
the older load-from-path method is now less preferred would have helped as 
well though.

Geert

[1] http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-user/2007-January/019100.html