Report Generation

[Cindy Doughty]

the accounts to be reversed seem to match with the definition you see when
hovering the mouse over the global preferences   accounts  reverse balanced
accounts.  The code is:

> (define account-types-to-reverse-assoc-list
>   (list (cons 'none '())
>         (cons 'income-expense
>               (list ACCT-TYPE-INCOME ACCT-TYPE-EXPENSE))
>         (cons 'credit-accounts
>               (list ACCT-TYPE-LIABILITY ACCT-TYPE-PAYABLE ACCT-TYPE-EQUITY
>
>>                     ACCT-TYPE-CREDIT ACCT-TYPE-INCOME))))
>>
>
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Cindy Doughty <dbdoughty at gmail.com> wrote:

> the actual line of code says
>
>> (if (member account-type account-types-to-reverse)
>>                 (gnc-numeric-neg damount)
>>
>>>                 damount))
>>>
>>
> which means when the entry is set to credit accounts  they are checking if
> the account is a credit account and if so switching the value from positive
> to negative
>
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Cindy Doughty <dbdoughty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am wondering if an additional choice should be added to reverse all,
>> would this solve the problem?
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Edward Doolittle <
>> edward.doolittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, I've done some more testing on this. You're right, the problem is
>>> with the original transaction.scm report. I imagine no one has noticed the
>>> problem before because everyone has only used the transaction report with a
>>> limited set of accounts, all of the same account time (all assets, for
>>> example). With your new report, there are many more creative ways it can be
>>> used, which makes the bug more apparent.
>>>
>>> You can reproduce the problem reliably in the following manner: create
>>> the account Expenses:Test-Expenses. Create the account
>>> Liabilities:Test-Liabilities. Create a transfer from
>>> Liabilities:Test-Liabilities to Expenses:Test-Expenses of $100, say. Since
>>> everything balances, the net total of the two accounts should be $0.
>>>
>>> Run a transaction report including both accounts Expenses:Test-Expenses
>>> and Liabilities:Test-Liabilities. If Options -> Display -> Sign Reverses is
>>> set to None, the Grand Total on the report is $0, as expected. If Options
>>> -> Display -> Sign Reverses is set to Credit Accounts, the Grand Total on
>>> the report becomes $200, which is incorrect.
>>>
>>> No other setting seems to have an effect on this: not the global
>>> Preferences -> Account -> Reversed Balanced Accounts setting, not any other
>>> setting in the old transaction report. It is all about that one setting,
>>> Sign Reverses in the transaction report.
>>>
>>> How to fix this in the transaction report: When Options -> Display ->
>>> Sign Reverses is set to Credit Accounts, the correct way to calculate a
>>> grand total is by adding numbers from debit accounts (Assets and Expenses)
>>> and *subtracting* numbers from credit accounts (Equity, Income,
>>> Liabilities).
>>>
>>> Using the example I gave above, it is also clear that an analogous fix
>>> needs to be made when Options -> Display -> Sign Reverses is set to Income
>>> and Expense.
>>>
>>> This problem seems to exist in both the existing, longstanding
>>> Transaction Report, and your new Transaction by Payee Report.
>>>
>>> Since these reports seem to be in flux, I'm not sure whether to submit a
>>> bug report or not. If you fix your new report and submit it to replace the
>>> old transaction report, that should take care of the bug.
>>>
>>> Edward
>>>
>>> On 11 March 2017 at 19:50, Cindy Doughty <dbdoughty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll have to think on it awhile - the fact it happens when consolidate
>>>> transactions is unchecked makes me think it is in the code in the original
>>>> transaction.scm file included with gnucash I started  with.   If you turn
>>>> on running balance and uncheck the entry use old running balance (both at
>>>> bottom of display tab under options)  does it give any clues?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Edward Doolittle <
>>>> edward.doolittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I just tested it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11 March 2017 at 11:20, Cindy Doughty <dbdoughty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the interaction happen both when consolidate transactions is
>>>>>> checked and when it is unchecked?  (under options display)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Edward Doolittle <
>>>>>> edward.doolittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Doug,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried your Transaction by Payee Report today, and it works great.
>>>>>>> It allows me to save searches, in particular the search for estimated
>>>>>>> (scheduled) transactions which have managed to move above the blue line
>>>>>>> into the past. Thank you for this work!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have noticed an oddity, however. I search all accounts, so total
>>>>>>> of the transactions that I find should balance to zero. I noticed that
>>>>>>> sometimes they don't. When I change the report option to Sign Reverses:
>>>>>>> None, then everything does balance to zero like I expect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue is that my overall preference in the application is to set
>>>>>>> "Reverse Balanced accounts" to "Credit accounts". I am puzzled by the
>>>>>>> interaction between the overall preference setting and the setting in your
>>>>>>> report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Edward Doolittle
>>> Associate Professor of Mathematics
>>> First Nations University of Canada
>>> 1 First Nations Way, Regina SK S4S 7K2
>>>
>>> « Toutes les fois que je donne une place vacante, je fais cent
>>> mécontents et un ingrat. »
>>> -- Louis XIV, dans Voltaire, Le Siècle de Louis XIV, Chap. XXVI
>>>
>>
>>
>