can I get info on quanties from bill splits?

[Shane Litherland]

Now there's a few things to ponder over a morning cuppa ;-)

thanks, see how I go.

-shane.

On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 10:23 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Shane Litherland <litherland-farm at bigpond.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi Derek
> >
> > I've looked at some of the .scm files,
> > I am thinking what might work for me, is copying the 'quantity' commands
> > for the invoice.scm into a customised version of the register.scm
> >
> >
> > My first step would naturally be to save a copy of the register.scm with
> > a new name so I can play with it.
> 
> You will need to:
> * rename the file
> * rename the module
> * rename the report
> * give the renamed report a new GUID
> 
> > That means then going through and e.g. changing the define lines from
> > 'register' to 'my-bastardisation-of-an-otherwise-workable-register'
> > or something similar... ;-)
> 
> Yep.
> 
> > Before I crash headlong into that, a quick 'find' shows 'register' in
> > other command pieces such as 
> > register-report-guid
> > gnc:register-report-create-internal
> > and others.
> 
> You will have to make changes in the report.scm.  You shouldn't need to
> make changes outside that report.  The 'create-internal' should possibly
> be removed from the copied report.
> 
> > are these commands/modules defined 'freestanding' (i.e. the register.scm
> > is calling them from elsewhere) and therefore I don't go changing their
> > leading name, or are they all referring back to earlier defines within
> > this register.scm file, in which case if I start changing the filename
> > and main define, I'd have to diligently work through and change any
> > 'children' bits..?
> 
> All the report files should be self sufficient, although sometimes there
> are hooks where others call into the report.  In those hook cases you
> will need to remove the hooks in your duplicated report.
> 
> > I can handle wading through it and slowly deciphering things, just
> > wanted to get some superior advice before I continue.
> 
> No worries!
> 
> > cheers,
> > shane.
> 
> -derek
>