GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 454834
Memo Incorrect or missing in Transaction Report
Last modified: 2018-06-29 21:42:06 UTC
When a Transaction report is generated for data range 1/7/06 to 30/6/07 the memo field is incorrect in most transactions. When the amount field is clicked and a jump occurs the correct memo is in the transaction.
This also occurs in Suse Linux 10.2 on same version of GnuCash.
What do you mean by "is incorrect"? What would be the correct content, and which content is shown instead? Could you perhaps add a screenshot of the erroneous report and a screenshot of the correct register? Thanks.
I was unable to attach screenshots so I have generated a transaction report and a register report which have a series of transactions in common. Thanks for looking at this. I have had this behaviour in all versions of GnuCash I have used starting with Suse 9.3 and Gnucash 1.8. I am currently using GnuCash 2.1.5 on Suse 10.2 (64Bit) and Win XP and have it still occurring. Here is the Transaction Report Transaction Report From 03/07/2007 To 04/07/2007 Date Num Description Memo Amount 03/07/2007 Transfer Money -AUD 600.00 04/07/2007 DOLA -AUD 56.25 04/07/2007 Hansel & Gretel -AUD 18.00 03/07/2007 ADGW -AUD 2,000.00 04/07/2007 Transfer Money AUD 40.00 03/07/2007 Transfer Money AUD 40.00 03/07/2007 Aldi -AUD 8.00 04/07/2007 Coles -AUD 17.75 04/07/2007 Project Lighting -AUD 7.40 03/07/2007 Transfer Money AUD 600.00 04/07/2007 DOLA AUD 56.25 04/07/2007 Hansel & Gretel AUD 18.00 03/07/2007 ADGW AUD 2,000.00 In this case there are no memos at all. Here is a register report for the same period on one of the accounts in the Transaction Report. 03/07/2007 Transfer Money Expenses - GM & LG Supperanuation:Contribution AUD 600.00 AUD 30,543.19 Top up to Pay Tax 03/07/2007 ADGW Personal Expenses:Home Rpair:Renovations AUD 2,000.00 AUD 28,543.19 Part Payment balance on Family Room Windows 03/07/2007 Transfer Money Assets:Current Assets:LancePettyCash AUD 40.00 AUD 28,503.19 Top up to Pay Tax 04/07/2007 Hansel & Gretel Personal Expenses:Groceries AUD 18.00 AUD 28,485.19 Hot Chocolate Mix 04/07/2007 Transfer Money Assets:Current Assets:LancePettyCash AUD 40.00 AUD 28,445.19 04/07/2007 DOLA Personal Expenses:Computing:Hardware AUD 56.25 AUD 28,388.94 2 - 40G hard drives Secondhand
This appears to be fixed in 2.2.1. When I run a Transaction Report, the memos are displayed correctly.
Created attachment 100632 [details] Transaction Report - incorrect memo
Created attachment 100633 [details] Transaction with memo
Thanks for the new attachments, Lance. I see what you mean now. The problem is that memos entered in the account register specifically at the transaction level (i.e. in double-line viewing mode) are not appearing on this report. Memos entered on split lines do appear correctly. I don't think that was made crystal clear before. I think that this is just the way the report is designed to work. I can think of a few ways that the "transaction" memo could be added to the report: 1. Add another column for memos entered at the transaction level. 2. Display the transaction memo by itself on a separate line (like seen in the register report). 3. If the split doesn't have a memo, display the transaction memo in its place. Personally I like #3 as it keeps the report format intact. Plus, if the split actually does have its own memo, then that's the one I'd prefer to see. What do you think? Which way were you expecting to see it?
Charles, I also Option #3. It is what I would expect to happen. Thanks
Created attachment 100683 [details] Transaction Report - Which shows a Memo The transaction report shows a memo against a transaction. When the transaction is clicked the register item jumped to shows a different memo and the same amount.
Created attachment 100684 [details] Register Transaction Jumped to in Report2 attachment This is the register item jumped to in the register report no.2. The report shows a different memo to the register item. The register item is not a split item.
Lance, if I understand your last two attachments, then for check #316 you are expecting to see "Investigate Gas Leak" in the report, rather than "Check Leaking Shower". But we already know that memos entered in double-line mode don't make it to the report, period. But how did the report come with "Check Leaking Shower" instead? My wild guess is that if you change the viewing mode so that you can see the split lines for check #316, you will see "Check Leaking Shower" in there. If so, it may have been carried over from an earlier transaction with Chesters Plumbing (an auto-fill). I would suspect to see the same thing on check #320. If I guessed right, then you'll want to get rid of those and try the report again.
Created attachment 100791 [details] [review] Proposed patch to Transaction Report This proposed patch modifies the Transaction Report so that when a split memo is blank, the transaction memo (if any) will be shown in its place.
I personally like this idea, though the patch is already out of date because of recent commits... sorry. It's easy enough to fix though as its should be just some line number issues. I'd like to see the column heading changed to something like "Memo/Notes". The option name and tooltip should be changed as well to better reflect the changed behavior. And for clarity's sake: the transaction level field is called "Notes" while the split level field is called "Memo".
I can easily substitute "Memo/Notes" in place of "Memo" in the various places and adjust the tooltips. "Memo/Notes" does read a little awkwardly though (not that I can come up with anything better), and wouldn't it make new translations necessary for each language? I'm not sure it adds a whole lot in the way of explanation. The names "Memo" and "Notes" don't really have a significant difference in English; their difference here is only meaningful because of the way the register fields are labeled, and even that labeling seems arbitrary. Any translation of "Memo/Notes" would have to exactly match the words shown in the register, or the meaning is lost. Do you think it is worth it? Is there any need to add to the available report options, so that the the original functionality remains available (show memos, but never notes)? Or is this a straight replacement?
As far as translations go, it is a simple matter to add comments indicating that the translators should match it with the appropriate translations for the register fields. I don't actually know where that comment should go, but it's easy enough to find out. I agree, Memo/Notes is kludgey, but they are different fields with theoretically different uses and some distinction should be made. For example, I put vendor account numbers in the Notes field so it prints on checks while I might put a description of a split in the memo field for future reference. So if I was writing it, I'd change the heading as indicated, and I'd change the option name/tooltip to Display Memo or Notes Fields. And then I'd add Yet Another Option (ugh, that poor report) called "Use Notes when Memo is missing" or something like that. IOW, I agree that merging the two fields together in this report is okay, but it should be optional to do so. You could get really creative and change the headings to indicate the option selection in the report itself: Memo for just memos and Memo/Note if the "Use Notes..." option is selected. In fact, as I type and think... and chew gum and walk... That's a great solution. And fun to implement as well ;-) If you go that route, I'd make the option default to selected so that the "what I ... expect" behavior in comment #8 is the default. Definitely avoid adding more columns as it just gets unwieldy (look at advanced portfolio and it may be growing more...). If you need help adding options, just shout. updating tags: downgrading to enhancement as that's what it really is.
I like the idea of giving the user more options, but style-wise it seems a bit ugly to use two totally independent checkboxes. That is, the checking or unchecking of "Use notes when memo is missing" has no effect whatsoever unless the "Memo" option has been checked. Typically this situation would be communicated to the user by greying out the "Use notes when memo is missing" option whenever it is irrelevant. Is there a way to get this behavior? Because it appears to me that the Display tab of the Options dialog box for this report is pretty stupid, i.e. it can only display a list of completely independent options that are fed to it by the Scheme code. If that is the case, then perhaps using a drop-down box would be better. The user would then choose between "Memos only", "Use notes when a memo is missing", or "Don't display this column". Additional options could be "Notes only" or "Use memo when notes are missing" (if these would be useful to someone). Let me know what you think.
There is a way to implement options so that they can "gray-out" Transaction report does this already, so it may be relatively easy to do, but I've never been able to wrap my head around it (haven't tried real hard). Implmenting a drop down box is probably the easiest way to do it. You can enumerate the choices and use a case statement to control the display of that column. Also, any option page can display any type of option: account list, simple boolean option, etc.
Thanks Andrew, you are right - I can indeed disable one checkbox based on another. I figured it out and got it working, but due to bug #506151 I think that I will still end up using a dropdown instead. It makes it easier to allow some extra options anyway.
Created attachment 101772 [details] [review] Revised patch (adds option, column title) In the interest of time, I decided to stick with the checkbox-style options, since I was already completely finished with it and bug #506151 is really not critical. So now there is a "Notes" checkbox option that allows the transaction notes to be displayed if the memo is empty. This option is turned on by default. While in effect, the "Memo" column is relabeled "Memo/Notes". Please take a look and let me know if anything else needs to be added or changed.
Applied to trunk as r16875. Awaiting backport.
Applied to branches/2.2 as r16895 for GnuCash 2.2.4. Thanks a lot!
GnuCash bug tracking has moved to a new Bugzilla host. This bug has been copied to https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454834. Please update any external references or bookmarks.