supplant the old interface, which relied on the Num typeclass.
MixedAmount did not have a very good Num instance. The only functions
which were defined were fromInteger, (+), and negate. Furthermore, it
was not law-abiding, as 0 + a /= a in general. Replacements for used
functions are:
0 -> nullmixedamt / mempty
(+) -> maPlus / (<>)
(-) -> maMinus
negate -> maNegate
sum -> maSum
sumStrict -> maSum
Also creates some new constructors for MixedAmount:
mixedAmount :: Amount -> MixedAmount
maAddAmount :: MixedAmount -> Amount -> MixedAmount
maAddAmounts :: MixedAmount -> [Amount] -> MixedAmount
Add Semigroup and Monoid instances for MixedAmount.
Ideally we would remove the Num instance entirely.
The only change needed have nullmixedamt/mempty substitute for
0 without problems was to not squash prices in
mixedAmount(Looks|Is)Zero. This is correct behaviour in any case.
both the quantity and the cost are zero. This is usually what you want,
but if you do only want to check whether the quantity is zero, you
can run mixedAmountStripPrices (or similar) before this.
(multiply|divide)(Mixed)?Amount now also multiply or divide the
TotalPrice if it is present, and the old
(multiply|divide)(Mixed)?AmountAndPrice functions are removed.
aquantity.
Journal entries still require a positive @@ price, but now the sign is
set after parsing, rather than when converting in amountToCost.
The reason for this change is that, if we're going to perform arithmetic
on Amount with TotalCost, then the presence of aquantity=0 means that
amountToCost would render the total cost as 0, because signum 0 == 0.
This makes journal entries like the following impossible to balance:
2000-01-01
a 0 @@ 10 A
b -10 A
On the accounts screen and register screen we round amounts according
to commodity styles, but when you drill down to a transaction you
probably want to see the unrounded amounts.
costing and valuation.
This currently is given a dummy NoCost argument and is equivalent to
"maybe id (*ApplyValuation ...)", but provides a constant interface so
that internal behaviour can be changed freely.
Also adds a postingDate argument to amountApplyValuation, and re-orders
the ValuationType and (Transaction/Posting) arguments to
(transaction/posting)ApplyValuation, to be consistent with
amountApplyValuation.
Command-line account aliases now also affect transactions read
from these formats (not just journal format).
lib: journalApplyAliases, transactionApplyAliases, postingApplyAliases
helpers have been added.
This introduces some new helper functions which are exactly the same
as what we had before, but do not call
normaliseMixedAmountSquashPricesForDisplay, so that we can use the new
functions for displaying Transaction and Posting. It also goes through
and gets rid of most uses of the old showMixed* functions which would
benefit from using the new interface.
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.
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.
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).
