-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.
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).
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.
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.
