This feature turns out to be quite involved, as valuation interacts
with the many report variations. Various bugs/specs have been
fixed/clarified relating to register's running total, balance totals
etc. Eg register's total should now be the sum of the posting amount
values, not the values of the original sums. Current level of support
has been documented.
When valuing at transaction date, we once again do early valuation of
all posting amounts, to get more correct results. variants. This means
--value-at=t can be slower than other valuation modes when there are
many transactions and many prices. This could be revisited for
optimisation when things are more settled.
We need this for choosing a valuation date, otherwise, report
functions would have to be in IO or we'd have to pass in yet another
argument.
It's optional because it's useful to be able to create report opts
purely (I think ?) This is not ideal but maybe not a problem.
Instead of converting all journal amounts to value early on, we now
convert just the report amounts to value, before rendering.
This was basically how it originally worked (for the balance command),
but now it's built in to the four basic reports used by print,
register, balance and their variants - Entries, Postings, Balance,
MultiBalance - each of which now has its own xxValue helper.
This should mostly fix -V's performance when there are many
transactions and prices (the price lookups could still be optimised),
and allow more flexibility for report-specific value calculations.
+------------------------------------------++-----------------+-------------------+--------------------------+
| || hledger.999.pre | hledger.999.1sort | hledger.999.after-report |
+==========================================++=================+===================+==========================+
| -f examples/1000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 1.08 | 0.96 | 0.76 |
| -f examples/2000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 1.65 | 1.05 | 0.73 |
| -f examples/3000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 2.43 | 1.58 | 0.84 |
| -f examples/4000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 4.39 | 1.96 | 0.93 |
| -f examples/5000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 7.75 | 2.99 | 1.07 |
| -f examples/6000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 11.21 | 3.72 | 1.16 |
| -f examples/7000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 16.91 | 4.72 | 1.19 |
| -f examples/8000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 27.10 | 9.83 | 1.40 |
| -f examples/9000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 39.73 | 15.00 | 1.51 |
| -f examples/10000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 50.72 | 25.61 | 2.15 |
+------------------------------------------++-----------------+-------------------+--------------------------+
There's one new limitation, not yet resolved: -V once again can pick a
valuation date in the future, if no report end date is specified and
the journal has future-dated transactions. We prefer to avoid that,
but reports currently are pure and don't have access to today's date.
-V is still quite a bit slower than no -V, but not as much as before:
+===========================================================++=======+
| hledger.999.pre -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal bal || 5.20 |
| hledger.999.pre -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal bal -V || 57.20 |
| hledger.999 -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal bal || 5.34 |
| hledger.999 -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal bal -V || 17.50 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------++-------+
I needed to be more careful about ordering, as johannesgerer's original
code was, and the tests missed it. I think I have it now.
Found the PR whose code I have been reworking, it was #438.
Hopefully this is will do it. This restores the past behaviour:
- parsing prices in balance assertions/assignments
- ignoring them in assertions
- using them in assignments
- and printing them
and clarifies tests and docs.
Going with option 1b from the issue: calculated and asserted amounts
are compared exactly, disregarding display precision.
But now balance assertion failure messages show those exact amounts at
full precision, avoiding confusion.
Surprisingly, balance assertions were checking to maximum precision,
which meant it was possible, with a display-precision-limiting
commodity directive, to have a failing assertion with the error
message showing asserted and actual amounts that looked the same.
Now we round the calculated account balance (but not the asserted
balance) to display precision before comparing. This should ensure
assertions always behave as you would expect from visual inspection.
This should eventually include accountnames from transaction
modifiers (if `--auto` is enabled), or periodic transactions (if
`--forecast` is enabled).
- parse a period expression by first extracting words separated by
single spaces, then by "re-parsing" this text with 'periodexprp'
- this way, the period expression parsers do not need to know about
the single- or double-space rules
A different approach: instead of converting to unit prices and fiddling
with the display precision, just multiply the total prices by the same
multiplier (and keep them positive).
This seems a little more natural. I'm not sure if one of these will be
more robust than the other.
Divide/multiply amounts *and* their total price, if they have one.
Helpful for keeping transactions balanced when transaction modifiers are
multiplying amounts.
Transaction modifier multipliers have never multiplied total-priced amounts
correctly (and prior to hledger 1.10, this could generate unbalanced
transactions).
Now, the generated postings in this situation will have unit prices,
and an extra digit of display precision. This helps ensure that
the modified transaction will remain balanced. I'm not sure yet if
it's guaranteed.
