[GNC] GnuCash 5.3 autofill headaches

[Michael or Penny Novack]

Describe THIS better David (lol, not yet having gotten up to 5.1 I can't 
look for myself)

> I also think that the registers now display a little differently to what
> they used to.  In 5.1 any open registers always scroll all the way to the
> end of the txns when you re-open your GnuCash data file.  In 5.3 they don't
> seem to quite get all the way to the bottom meaning you have to manually
> page down in every register you had open to see all your future txns, which
> in my case is sometimes 15 - 20 as I like to know what's coming up for the
> next 60 days cash flow wise.

Are you saying "used to scroll down to the last SCHEDULED transaction 
but now scrolls down to the last EXISTING transaction?

I do understand you saying you like the prior behavior, but probably 
most folks considered that a bug they were happy to see fixed. After 
all, USUALLY they are in an account in order to add a transaction, and 
immediately after the last EXISTING transaction is normally where you do 
that << of course gnucash might move it somewhere else depending on the 
effective data of the new transaction. You are presumably taking 
advantage of THAT behavior when entering transactions at what you 
consider the end. The development team probably considered this not a 
"change" but fixing a bug.

Do note that probably many people, myself included, are very often 
wanting to look at the last few actual transactions at the time 
entering  anew one (it's how we spot "damn, forgot to enter last 
month's", etc.). Probably many people, most people, have only a very few 
accounts where  scheduled transactions make up a high percentage of 
transactions by amount  (and so scheduled transaction have the main 
affect on cash flow)

BTW --  this perhaps is a good example why you don't have me 
volunteering with the development crew. The lack of a FORMAL DEFINITION 
that would settle matters like this (feature or bug?) Mind, in that 
world of software development from which I come, the project phase for 
doing that was about 20% of the whole and required the commitment of 
USERS to the process.

Michael D Novack

PS --- don't you love the term "bug". Where I used to work, they had the 
late Grace Murray Hopper in to give us a talk every few years. One of 
her anecdotes of the early days was how the term came about. One time a 
"down" was caused by an insect getting into the machine and causing a 
short. Could just picture the glee of those people as youngsters as they 
attached the specimen* and pages and pages about its life cycle, etc. to 
the hated "problem report" they were required to submit for every "down" 
as a sort of protest. So naturally, the next time they came over with a 
report on a down the response was "OK, what kind of a bug was it this time".

* They had sent over to the Smithsonian for an ID and as much 
information about it as possible, so they had a LOT of pages to append.