layout and formatting problems with 2.6.14

[David Carlson]

I have not yet migrated to release 2.6.14, so I cannot verify, but if you
read the last few comments in that bug report it looks like you should be
able to have all of your accounts in ascending numerical order if you click
on the column header enough times to get the little arrow to point in the
downward direction.

David C

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Barnabooth <brantlouise at gmail.com> wrote:

> I created all my accounts with an account code, as described in my original
> post. I neglected to say that while all the parent accounts were simply
> named (Assets, etc) the sub-account names included their number; ie,
> 1050—Petty Cash, 1060—Bank Account, etc; this because I wanted to keep my
> reports as similar to the Simply Accounting layout as possible.
> My original intention was to hide the Parent accounts, and I was taken
> aback
> to realize that all the sub-accounts vanished at the same time!
>
> I reset the Accounts Display to sort by Account Number, and it did—but
> running from high to low, ie showing Expenses at the top of the page and
> Assets at the bottom. I attempted to reset the display to sort by name, but
> now that field shows “Account Name” at the top of the list, checked but
> greyed out. It then shows “Total”, checked.
>
> After sucking my teeth for some while, I renamed my parent accounts: ie,
> “Assets” became “1000—Assets” but this changed nothing.
> Note that throughout these experiments the Trial Balance continues to show
> the accounts in the preferred sequence, from low to high.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gnucash.1415818.n4.
> nabble.com/layout-and-formatting-problems-with-2-6-
> 14-tp4687189p4687224.html
> Sent from the GnuCash - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>