This is an API change, but it seems better than having additional
colour-supporting variants and trying to avoid duplicated code.
I stopped short of changing showAmount, so cshowAmount still exists.
Multicolumn balance reports showing many commodities tend to become
unreadably wide, especially in tree mode. Now by default we show at
most two commodities, and a count of the rest if there are more than
two. This should help keep reports somewhat readable by default.
As mentioned by netvor on IRC, the unbalanced transaction error was
not too clear when postings all have the same sign.
Some other wording has been clarified, and the main error message is
now shown on multiple lines for readability (at the cost of
predictability/grepability..)
There's also a probably unnoticeable change: selecting which parts of
the error to show is now based on display precisions (reusing the
balanced check logic), rather than original precisions.
Amounts in JSON are now rendered as simple Numbers with up to 10
decimal places, instead of Decimal objects which would in some cases
have 255 digits, too many for most JSON parsers to handle.
A provisional fix, see the comment in Json.hs for more detail.
D directives are now fully equivalent to commodity directives for
setting a commodity's display style. (Previously it was equivalent to
a posting amount, so it couldn't limit the number of decimal places.)
When both kinds of directive exist, commodity directives take precedence.
When there are multiple D directives in the journal, only the last one
affects display style.
Stop exporting journalAmounts, overJournalAmounts, traverseJournalAmounts.
Rename journalAmounts helper to journalStyleInfluencingAmounts.
D directives are now a little better at influencing amount
canonicalisation, eg in the updated test case.
Fix presumably copy-paste errors
timeclock format has only timeclock lines or empty/comment lines
Update test format to v3, add new tests
Throw error on unexpected clock codes in timeclock format
Fix missing case in pattern matching
(max|min)imum(By)?Def are being replaced by (max|min)imumBound(By)?
but the old functions have the semantics I want and
I don't understand the new ones yet.
This can hide other deprecation warnings in this file,
and presumably the old functions will be removed later,
so this is temporary.
Cf https://github.com/ndmitchell/safe/issues/26
Hledger.Util.Tests helpers have been cleaned up, and test names are
now shown.
Tests have been cleaned up a bit. Some groups of unnamed tests have
been collapsed into a single named test containing a sequence of
assertions. The test command counts named tests, not assertions, so
the reported unit test count has dropped from 199 to 188.
easytest is not actively maintained and requires an old version of
hedgehog which does not support base-compat 0.11 & ghc 8.8.
This is still using the old easytest helpers, and not displaying test
names properly.
It seems we don't use it at all, and ony says it's not robust with
prices either.
Merge remote-tracking branch 'ony/chores/drop-elide-in-showTransaction'
This commit introduces the commandline argument -%/--percent to show
percentages of the column's total instead of the absolute amounts for
each account in reports. The signs of the values are preserved.
This option is especially useful for the balance and incomestatement
commands.
If there are multiple commodities involved in a report hledger bails
with an error message. This can be avoided by using --cost. Also note
that if one uses -% with the balance command the chances are high that
all numbers are 0. This is due to the fact that by default balance sums
up to zero. If one wants to use -% in a meaningful way with balance one
has to add a query.
In order to keep the implementation as simple as possible --tree has no
influence over how the percentages are calculated, i.e., the percentages
always represent the fraction of the columns total. If one wants to know
the percentages relative to a parent account, one has to use a query to
narrow down the accounts.
This behavior is highly depends on journal. If we want to re-introduce
it we'd better re-consider how transaction entry can be "simplified".
I.e. besides dropping last amount we may drop prices that can be assumed
implicitly.
Note that there is no need to knit it into showTransaction since it
easily achievable with pre-processing (similar to implicit balances
etc).
Certain journal entries could trigger a bug where we displayed amounts
with the same character for digit group mark and decimal mark. Now if
a comma or period digit group mark is detected, that forces the
decimal mark to be the other character.
And if they did, the stats command would now throw an error.
Changed:
journalApplyCommodityStyles
journalInferCommodityStyles
commodityStylesFromAmounts
fail is moving out of Monad and into it's own MonadFail class.
This will be enforced in GHC 8.8 (I think).
base-compat/base-compat-batteries 0.11.0 have adapted to this,
and are approaching stackage nightly
(https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stackage/issues/4802).
hledger is now ready to build with base-compat-batteries 0.11.0, once
all of our deps do (eg aeson). We are still compatible with the older
0.10.x and GHC 7.10.3 as well.
For now we are using both fails:
- new fail (from Control.Monad.Fail), used in our parsers, imported
via base-compat-batteries Control.Monad.Fail.Compat to work with
older GHC versions.
- old fail (from GHC.Base, exported by Prelude, Control.Monad,
Control.Monad.State.Strict, Prelude.Compat, ...), used in easytest's
Test, since I couldn't find their existing fail implementation to update.
To reduce (my) confusion, these are imported carefully, consistently,
and qualified everywhere as Fail.fail and Prelude.fail, with clashing
re-exports suppressed, like so:
import Prelude hiding (fail)
import qualified Prelude (fail)
import Control.Monad.State.Strict hiding (fail)
import "base-compat-batteries" Prelude.Compat hiding (fail)
import qualified "base-compat-batteries" Control.Monad.Fail.Compat as Fail
-V (and -X) now respects a report end date set with -e/-p/date: when
choosing the valuation date, similar to hledger 1.14 and Ledger.
This means that -V/-X aren't exactly like either --value=end or
--value=now. The "Effect of --value on reports" doc has been extended
accordingly, and much of it has been reworded and made more accurate.
dropped journalPrices
renamed Price to AmountPrice, AKA "transaction price"
renamed MarketPrice to PriceDirective.
added new MarketPrice (more pure form of PriceDirective without the amount style information)
Prices is now a more efficient data structure, but not used yet.
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
- In anticipation of megaparsec 7, which removes support for stacks of
include files (as far as I can tell)
- Intended for the 'StateT Journal' layer of the parser
- A stack of include files would be better in a 'ReaderT' layer, but I
don't want to add another layer to the parser
- Intended for detecting cycles of include files
- Potential issue: for proper error messages for include file cycles,
we must remember to provide the filepath of the root journal file via
the initial journal state passed to a 'JournalParser'; I imagine
that we may forget to do so because in all other cases it is okay
not to do so.
A bunch of account sorting changes that got intermingled.
First, account codes have been dropped. They can still be parsed and
will be ignored, for now. I don't know if anyone used them.
Instead, account display order is now controlled by the order of account
directives, if any. From the mail list:
I'd like to drop account codes, introduced in hledger 1.9 to control
the display order of accounts. In my experience,
- they are tedious to maintain
- they duplicate/compete with the natural tendency to arrange account
directives to match your mental chart of accounts
- they duplicate/compete with the tree structure created by account
names
and it gets worse if you think about using them more extensively,
eg to classify accounts by type.
Instead, I plan to just let the position (parse order) of account
directives determine the display order of those declared accounts.
Undeclared accounts will be displayed after declared accounts,
sorted alphabetically as usual.
Second, the various account sorting modes have been implemented more
widely and more correctly. All sorting modes (alphabetically, by account
declaration, by amount) should now work correctly in almost all commands
and modes (non-tabular and tabular balance reports, tree and flat modes,
the accounts command). Sorting bugs have been fixed, eg #875.
Only the budget report (balance --budget) does not yet support sorting.
Comprehensive functional tests for sorting in the accounts and balance
commands have been added. If you are confused by some sorting behaviour,
studying these tests is recommended, as sorting gets tricky.
