[GNC] The meaning of Running Balance in Transaction Report: bug or enhancement request?

[Vincent Dawans]

Yes it is indeed a simplified example I was using. And your second example
is the one that indeed I show as working (the one with all
expense accounts; in my example I just have 2 -- dining and clothes). That
as long as all transactions are included in the time period. But as soon as
you use one of the other filtering options then it also breaks even in that
single-account context since the running balance info attached to each
transaction doesn't actually change (the filtering just hides some
transactions).

Note that if you do it the other way, meaning selecting the checking
account and then sorting by "other accounts" then it also doesn't work
since the running balance is now the one retrieved from the checking
account, but in a completely different order than what is now sorted.

The bottom line is that the "running balance" means "running balance
attached to each transaction in the underlying accounts selected in the
report" and it only makes sense if the report is sorted by primary
accounts. That's it. I think I am going to create a bug report so that at
least there can be some explanation or something added to the option to
mention that. As it stands I think it's really counter-intuitive
considering that the transaction report has so many filtering options and
other ways to sort, all of which render the running balance quite
nonsensical.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:25 PM Adrien Monteleone <
adrien.monteleone at lusfiber.net> wrote:

> It could just be that you're providing a simplified example, but in that
> screenshot I noticed every single line had the Checking Account as the
> 'Transfer' account. (other account)
>
> Why not just run the report on the Checking Account only?
>
> It would then give you a running balance that makes sense.
>
> And if you choose Primary Sort as 'Other Account Name' you'll get a
> report that first shows everything from the Checking Account with a
> running balance, then a repeat of each transaction but grouped by each
> 'other' account with their own totals. (and Running Balances!)
>
> *that first set of transactions will likely show up as 'split
> transaction' as the 'other account'. I'm not sure how to suppress that
> section. (or maybe you want to keep it as it does show the info by date
> order - it is like two reports in one)
>
> If you just want a list of transactions that affected say, the Checking
> Account, then simply run the report for that account only. You don't
> need to guess and/or select all other possible affected accounts.
>
> -----
>
> As a test, I did a report choosing only Expense accounts. (all of them)
>
> I set the sort order Primary Key to 'Account Name'.
>
> That resulted in a report of each Expense account showing me a balance
> forward, followed by a correct running balance with each transaction,
> along with a total for that account for the duration of the report.
> Note, the running balance in this case was per account, because I had
> sorted that way.
>
> -----
>
> If you're looking for a report where the source of funds may be multiple
> accounts, and the destination multiple accounts, and you want to see
> say, a running balance of expenses, I'm not sure that can be done. But
> I'm up to the challenge. I'll see if I can make it work and report back.
>
> As you've noted, the work around is to get as close as you can and then
> export to a spreadsheet to add that formula, for now...
>
> Regards,
> Adrien
>
> On 10/26/22 4:23 PM, Vincent Dawans wrote:
> > Thank you Adrien. I would expect a running balance starting with the
> first
> > transaction amount and ending with the last transaction as sorted. As if
> > you were putting a list of transactions in Excel and simply creating a
> > running balance by adding the previous line's running balance+current
> line.
> > In fact right now that's what I do as a workaround and it works fine, so
> > it's not even a big problem, just one thing I have been thinking about
> how
> > to fix best. See attached "TR sorted by date with expected running
> > balance.png" where I have added an example in red.
> >
> > I agree it might possibly be an odd case, essentially needed when
> combining
> > a series of transactions from several accounts filtered in various ways.
> > But that is sort of the point of the transaction report. It is pretty
> > flexible in that way, combining all sorts of transactions from various
> > places, with the filtering not only by accounts but all sorts of things,
> in
> > fact there is an entire filter section in the settings, you can even use
> > regular expressions, etc.
> >
> > As far as implementation, yes it might not be trivial based on how the
> > report engine is designed since essentially this is data calculated
> within
> > the report, not available outside of it. But I don't know enough to judge
> > on how difficult it would be to implement. From a UI perspective, making
> > sure the users don't get both concepts mixed up is another challenge for
> > sure, so as you say it may even be less clear
> > when chosen as an option.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
> 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.
>