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.
To reduce confusion, multiperiod balance reports using -H/--historical
or --cumulative, which show end balances, no longer show a Totals
column since summing end balances generally doesn't make sense.
Also the underlying MultiBalanceReport now returns zero for those
totals when in cumulative or historical mode.
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.
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.
Income, liability and equity balances, which until now we have
always displayed as negative numbers, are now shown as normally positive
by these reports.
Negative numbers now indicate a contra-balance (eg an overdrawn
checking account), a net loss, a negative net worth, etc.
This makes these reports more like conventional financial statements,
and easier to read and share with normal people.
Compound balance commands like these can now be aware of normal account
balance sign, and sort negative balances accordingly.
This also adds utility-ht as a dependency, only for the uncurry function
right now but it looks potentially useful to have.
This patch fixes a bug that happened when using the -H option on
a period without any transaction. Previously, the behavior was no
output at all even though it should have shown the previous ending balances
of past transactions. (This is similar to previously using -H with -E,
but with the extra advantage of not showing empty accounts)
Of the 2 tests, the first is a simple test on a specific period.
The second is expected to fail at this point until the new upcoming
code to fix the issue with the history option is implemented.
For the record : this issue happens when we use the -H flag for a period
that does not contain any transactions. Currently, the ending balance
values are only taken into account if the current period contains
a Transaction containing one of the previous populated accounts.
For example, if we have a statement on the 2008/01/01 for $1
and we do a command (with -H) to check the value on the
(without transactions) 2008/01/02, we will not get the $1 from
2008/01/01. In that same example, if we had a transaction for the same
account as 2008/01/01 in say 2008/01/03 then the -H command would
successfully show the statement from 2008/01/03 with the initial amount
that we set in 2008/01/01.
- try to clarify naming and meaning of balance/register report modes
and kinds of "balance" displayed. Added balance --change and
register --cumulative flags to clarify report modes.
- with multiple --change/--cumulative/--historical flags use the last
instead of complaining
- register -A is now affected by -H
- options cleanups
-H/--historical now makes a single-column balance report with a start
date show historical balances reflecting earlier postings. This is
equivalent to specifying no start date, but it's more consistent.
