Expense Piechart report gives misleading results

[David Carlson]

Now the missing response and another missing post have magically
re-appeared.  I see that you agree that there is an issue.  I think that if
I have figured out how it actually works now, I could file a bug report.
Would you two gentlemen and any others watching this thread agree that I
have stated the problem accurately, or am I missing something?

David C

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:56 AM, David Carlson <david.carlson.417 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> David T,
>
> For some strange reason your first response is missing from the thread on
> my maillist, so I do not know what you said there.  However, If I
> understood gbguy's original post, he was stating that the Expense Piechart
> report did not 'roll up" deep level sub-account expenses into the top level
> total.
>
> I seem to recall that budgets also work that way, i.e. low level
> sub-accounts do not get 'rolled up' into the top level expense when there
> are not explicitly separated out.
>
> Yet, I think that in the CoA page and in other places they do, in fact get
> 'rolled up' into the total expenses.
>
> My question is that since the piechart and budget reports (among others)
> seem to be capable of automatically hiding lower level sub-accounts,
> shouldn't they consistently 'roll up' lower level sub-account amounts into
> the first level that is explicitly displayed?  I have not tested my data to
> see how GnuCash works, so perhaps it is consistent to some rule that I am
> overlooking.
>
> David C
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:05 AM, David T. via gnucash-user <
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org> wrote:
>
>> Create a Transaction Report with the accounts of interest, set to include
>> transactions from last year.
>>
>> > On Jan 8, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Ed Reeder <ereeder at mailup.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > David,
>> > Thanks for the confirmation!
>> >
>> > Since I'm in the process of budgeting for next year any suggestions on
>> > how to fairly easily get accurate expense numbers for this past year?
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017, at 12:11 AM, David T. wrote:
>> >> I see similar bumps.
>> >>
>> >> Adjusting the depth of the piechart causes the Expenses total to
>> change,
>> >> in my test case by what I suspect is a single reverse transaction.
>> >>
>> >> Moreover, running a general transaction report for all expenses for the
>> >> same time period yields an entirely different total, by a more
>> >> substantial amount. Clearly, the totalling function in the scheme needs
>> >> some love. Unfortunately, I don’t do Scheme.
>> >>
>> >> David
>> >>
>> >>> On Jan 8, 2017, at 5:57 AM, gbguy <ereeder at mailup.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Bump
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> View this message in context: http://gnucash.1415818.n4.nabb
>> le.com/Expense-Piechart-report-gives-misleading-results-
>> tp4688641p4688661.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.
>> >>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>