GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 344869
No warning when you change a reconciled split from another account in basic ledger mode
Last modified: 2018-06-29 21:08:03 UTC
SVN r14352. Assume accounts Cash and Expense, a txn from Cash to Expense, reconciled in Cash. See also next attachment. Open Expense View->Basic Ledger All warnings reset Choose another (Other) account as transfer account of the txn. Save that txn. Expected: The same warning should pop up as if done in Cash or with expanded txn (Auto-Split Ledger, Transaction Journal, Split Txn).
Created attachment 67340 [details] small example file
This bug is also in 1.8.12.
*** Bug 442545 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This bug is still present in release 2.4.10 for Windows. As described either above or in bug 442545, assume there is a transaction that is reconciled in one of the accounts but not in all the accounts present in the transaction. For reference, I tested in Windows 7 with an XML data file. English language, USA locale. Select a reconciled transaction in Auto split Ledger view or Journal View. Highlight a split row that does not have a 'y' in the reconcile box. Left click and click Jump. From that register it is possible to edit date, Number or Description without triggering the Edit Reconciled Transaction warning, even though it is set. If the transaction split row containing a 'y' is selected and Jumped to, an attempt to edit these fields will trigger the Edit Reconciled Transaction warning. The same behavior is also seen if the transaction is edited in a Search Results register. This is inconsistent. Attempts to edit those fields should trigger the warning regardless of which register is in the background. Attempts to edit Action, Memo or Transfer accounts in unreconciled rows do not trigger the warning. I consider this to be acceptable. A solution will, of course, have to work without breaking the portions of the various import transactions assistants that might be affected. One option to consider would be to keep the date single valued, but to allow the Number and Description fields be filled from the Action and Memo fields resp. rather than be unique values. As a user I would prefer not to use this option. David C
*** Bug 511433 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 677961 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 221362 [details] [review] Reconcile patch This patch brings up a dialogue when any split linked to a reconciled split is changed. I am not sure if this covers every thing but it looks OK to me but I may be missing some angle. It uses the same dialogue as the reconcile change so there is only one entry under 'Actions/Reset Warnings' to reset but may require the text to be improved.
Comment on attachment 221362 [details] [review] Reconcile patch Thank you for your patch. Technically, it's perfectly fine, but personally I wonder if the added test is not too strict. Here is my reasoning: - Reconcile is primarily meant to verify if the entries in your bank accounts match your bank's statements. - The GnuCash reconcile window only shows transaction date, number, description and amount. So only these pieces of information can really be verified during a reconcile. - So in my personal opinion, only these parts should be prevented from being changed after the split is reconciled (including obviously the account in which it was reconciled itself). By this logic, other splits in the same transaction should not be treated as reconciled and a user should be allowed to change those. Changing an unreconciled split in a transaction that has reconciled splits, doesn't affect the reconciled split nor the balance of the account in which the reconciled split resides. In the same logic, the notes field (which is part of the transaction, not of any of the splits) should not considered frozen after a reconcile. The reconcile action doesn't verify this field, and changing the field afterwards won't impact the reconciled balance. This is what bug 611768 is all about. So I believe the test should slightly be refined to - if the current split is reconciled - OR ( if the transaction has reconciled splits - AND the field being modified is any of date, num, description (and perhaps amount?)) THEN proceed with the warning clause. What do you think ?
Created attachment 222303 [details] [review] Reconcile patch As always it is great to get another point of view... I have made some changes that allow you to change notes, memo and action with out a warning. I still like the idea of warning about account and numeric values, at least it gives people a nudge if it is really what they want to do. As before there are two warnings sharing the same dialogue, if you can think of better text, please change. Bob
Comment on attachment 222303 [details] [review] Reconcile patch Committed in r22351. I pondered a bit on a better wording for the second warning, but couldn't come up with anything more concise or clear, so I kept what you have come up with. Thank you for your patch !
This problem has been fixed in the development version. The fix will be available in the next major software release. Thank you for your bug report.
GnuCash bug tracking has moved to a new Bugzilla host. This bug has been copied to https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344869. Please update any external references or bookmarks.