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
- for pretty-printing parse errors thrown from the parsing of excerpts
of the source text as if they were thrown from the parsing of the
source text itself
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.
That code fails to compile with ghc-8.6.1 because the instance is undecidable.
I suppose we could enable the appropriate compiler extension to support it, but
I've found that simply removing the instance causes no problems whatsoever: the
entire repository still compiles fine and it passes all test suites, too.
Noticed by peti: showTransaction could sometimes hide the last posting's
amount even if one of the other posting amounts was already implcit,
producing invalid transaction output.
* journal: Get rid of `journalFinalise` and use granular functions
Complete the process started in 53b3e2bd. This gets rid of the
`journalFinalise` function and uses the smaller steps, in order to
have more granular control.
* journal: Change order of operations in finalization
We want to make sure that we add the filepath after the order is
reversed, so the added filepath is on the head and not the tail (as it
would be if it were reversed after it was added).
* journal: Refine granular finalization functions
This commit fixes two of the granular finalization functions:
1. Rename `journalSetTime` to `journalSetLastReadTime` and improve
documentation.
2. Remove `journalSetFilePath`. It's redundant with `journalAddFile`
currently in `Hledger.Read.Common`. The only difference between the
functions is where the file is added (we keep the one in which it
is added to the tail), so we change the position vis-a-vis
reversal.
`journalFinalise` is only used in the `parseAndFinaliseJournal`
functions, but it needs to be run differently at different stages when
transaction modifiers are applied. This change breaks it into smaller
functions, and uses those smaller parts in `parseAndFinaliseJournal`
as needed.
Previously we ran if `--auto` was set. But this adds a small
performance hit if `--auto` becomes default. Now we only run twice if
there are transactionModifiers AND `--auto` is set. So even if auto is
specified, there will be no penalty if there are no modifiers.
Currently, automated transactions are added before the journal is
finalized. This means that no inferred values will be picked up. We
change the procedure, if `auto_` is set, to
1. first run `journalFinalise` without assertion checking (assertions
might be wrong until automated transactions), but with reordering
2. Insert transaction modifiers
3. Run `journalFinalise` again, this time with assertion checking as
set in the options, and without reordering.
If `auto_` is not set, all works as before.
Closes: #893
Currently `journalFinalise` always reverses the order of
entries. However, if there are automated transactions, we might need
to run it twice. This adds a boolean flag to make reordering
optional. This will be used in the `parseAndFinaliseJournal`
functions.
These commands now detect the account types declared by account directives.
Whenever such declarations are not present, built-in regular expressions
are used, as before.
Previously you had to use one of the standard english account names
(assets, liabilities..) for top-level accounts, if you wanted to use
the bs/bse/cf/is commands.
Now, account directives can specify which of the big five categories
an account belongs to - asset, liability, equity, revenue or expense -
by writing one of the letters A, L, E, R or X two or more spaces after
the account name (where the numeric account code used to be).
This might change. Some thoughts influencing the current syntax:
- easy to type and read
- does not require multiple lines
- does not depend on any particular account numbering scheme
- allows more types later if needed
- still anglocentric, but only a little
- could be treated as syntactic sugar for account tags later
- seems to be compatible with (ignored by) current Ledger
The current design permits unlimited account type declarations anywhere
in the account tree. So you could declare a liability account somewhere
under assets, and maybe a revenue account under that, and another asset
account even further down. In such cases you start to see oddities like
accounts appearing in multiple places in a tree-mode report. In theory
the reports will still behave reasonably, but this has not been tested
too hard. In any case this is clearly too much freedom. I have left it
this way, for now, in case it helps with:
- modelling contra accounts ?
- multiple files. I suspect the extra expressiveness may come in handy
when combining multiple files with account type declarations,
rewriting account names, apply parent accounts etc.
If we only allowed type declarations on top-level accounts, or
only allowed a single account of each type, complications seem likely.
