Check printing is missing a split entry.

[David Carlson]

On 12/6/2013 11:59 AM, Tommy Trussell wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Mike Alexander <mta at umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> --On December 5, 2013 9:35:49 AM -0500 Dennis Shimer <dshimer at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Anybody interested in taking my sample .gnucash file and .chk file and
>>> giving it a run?  I can't believe I can do this on 3 computers and 3
>>> OSs with 2 chk files and 2 gnucash files.
>>>
>>> I have to be doing something really basic and dumb. Or it's my eyes,
>>> I even got out a calculator and added the splits to make sure
>>> something was missing, not trusting myself to count to 4 splits (or
>>> 10 on the more complex sample)
>>>
>>>
>> You're not doing anything wrong.  I added a comment to the bug you
>> commented on (<https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653594>)
>> explaining what I found.
>>
>> The last split is not printed in the list of splits.  I suspect this may
>> be intentional because often the last split is the one that controls the
>> value printed on the check (if there is a single credit to a single
>> checking account and several debits to various expense accounts).  This is
>> not the case for your transaction.  I think a better way to do it would be
>> to print all the splits except whichever one is the "main" split for the
>> check, i.e., the one from which the check's value is being taken.
>>
>> Unless someone thinks this is a bad idea, that's what I'll do.  At the
>> same time, I'll change it to make sure that the split from which the value
>> is taken is really a bank account split.  Right now that isn't the case and
>> you can (usually accidentally, I suspect) print a check for only one of the
>> expenses covered by the transaction.
>>
>>              Mike
>>
>>
> I was reading this discussion (and the bug report). It sounds like a basic
> single check for a single transaction with multiple splits wasn't always
> putting all the appropriate splits on the voucher. (My interest was piqued
> because I have been wondering if I could modify a similar check format to
> print a deposit slip -- with a deposit slip form at the top and the items
> for deposit listed below.)
>
> HOWEVER back to the check voucher ... Mike Alexander suggested (in the bug
> report) the use-case where someone might generate two checks for a single
> transaction. I tried to imagine what this would look like...
>
> The two cases I imagined were 1) paying for a single set of expenses using
> multiple bank accounts OR 2) paying multiple payees for a single set of
> items.
>
> SO you might receive a box of widgets and you pay 2/3 of the total amount
> to payee 1 and 1/3 to payee 2. The vouchers for both checks would need to
> represent the amount going to both checks so the amounts would total
> correctly.
>
> Similarly if you receive a box of widgets and pay 1/3 of the total amount
> from bank account 1 and 1/3 from bank account 2, and 1/3 from bank account
> 3. Again, on the voucher you would want to represent the amount going to
> all three checks so the totals add up.
>
> I felt compelled to spell this out because it wasn't immediately
> understandable to me until I did. I haven't worked with the vouchers so I
> don't know how multiple checks and splits for a single transaction are
> identified, textually. Should such a voucher use debit and credit columns
> or positive and negative numerals? Maybe this is already specified in a
> design document somewhere.
>
>
>
>> -----
>> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
>> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

I disagree.  It is my understanding that a check voucher is only to tell
the payee what the check is paying for, so he can manage his records. 
Thus there should be no mention of anything else.

But, you are correct that that a payor does want to correctly track all
the scenarios that you just described.  While the business features may
address those concerns of partial payments, etc., I think that is not
easy for individuals that are not using those features.  If GnuCash
could address them so that users do not have to set up a spreadsheet or
whatever outside of GnuCash to do it, I would be grateful.

David C