Quickfill gripe -- again!

John Layman john.layman at laymanandlayman.com
Tue Dec 20 16:42:26 EST 2011


An issue somewhat relevant to this discussion is the fact that the "Remove
transaction splits" feature does absolutely nothing in 2.4.8.

-----Original Message-----
From: gnucash-user-bounces+john.layman=laymanandlayman.com at gnucash.org
[mailto:gnucash-user-bounces+john.layman=laymanandlayman.com at gnucash.org] On
Behalf Of Paul Abrahams
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:07 PM
To: gnucash-user at gnucash.org
Cc: Fred Bone
Subject: Re: Quickfill gripe -- again!

On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:10:30 AM David T. wrote:
> I will assume that your "<b>" represents the backspace key.

<b> was supposed to represent "blank", not backspace.  That was a poor
choice on my part.  Please reexamine my comments (reproduced below) with
that in mind.  
> 
> There are two different issues going with Quickfill. The first is 
> getting the description formed as we like; the other is getting the 
> splits the way we like. I will comment only on the first, since I do 
> not know how to avoid the second...
> 
> My experience is that if I type "Kmart.<b>" (note the trailing period 
> followed by the backspace) that the description field stays "Kmart". 
> And it does not need further additions on subsequent iterations. Paul, 
> I believe that was the point that Fred was making.

I believe that typing "Kmart.<bs>" is in every way equivalent to simply
typing "Kmart".  Is that right?
> 
> The issue of unwanted split configuration has come up before, and no 
> one has proposed a viable solution that meets everyone's needs.

Cancelling the quickfill by whatever method would perforce cancel an
unwanted split.  And the method I recommend is that a trailing space <s>
does the cancellation.

As far as what one wants: if the memorized transaction was a split, then
there are three possibilities: you want the same split as before, you want a
different split, or you want no split  In the first case, quickfill does
exactly the right thing; in the third case, cancelling the quickfill does
the right thing.  The second case is squishier -- is it easier to edit the
previous split or just construct a new one?  Really, the user should have
the choice in that case, and a quickfill cancellation convention provides
that choice.

>From my earlier post:
> 
> So if you have a description, say, of "Kmart", you can cancel 
> quickfill by typing "Kmart<b>" once.  If on a subsequent transaction you
type either
> "Kmart" or "Kmart<b>", you'll get the quickfill.   At that point, typing
> "Kmart<b><b>" will again bypass the quickfill -- once.
> 
> Since we're now debating what the behavior is, not what it ought to 
> be, we should be able to converge on an agreement once we resolve 
> whatever misunderstandings there are.  Here's the experiment I suggest:
> 
> 1. Create a transaction with description "Newstore" and a transfer 
> account that's a split.
> 
> 2. Create another transaction with description "Newstore" and tab 
> across, then backtab.  The split will not go away and cannot be 
> removed just by typing another account name.
> 
> 3. Create another transaction with description "Newstore<b>".  No 
> quickfill will occur.
> 
> 4. Create another transaction with description "Newstore<b>"  You'll 
> get the quickfill again.
> 
> Can you suggest an experiment that demonstrates your view of the matter?

_______________________________________________
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.



More information about the gnucash-user mailing list