May also fix#1154, #1033, #708, #536, #73: testing is needed.
This aims to solve all problems where misconfigured locales lead to
parsers failing on utf8-encoded data. This should hopefully avoid
encoding issues, but since it fundamentally alters how encoding is dealt
with it may lead to unexpected outcomes. Widespread testing on a number
of different platforms would be useful.
This requires checking parent accounts for any new accounts introduced by auto postings which do not exist in the original journal.
Also refactor journalFinalise to only call journalPostingsAddAccountTags once, and use fewer intermediate variables.
style amounts according to that argument. journalAddForecast and
journalTransform now return an Either String Journal.
This improves efficiency, as we no longer have to restyle all amounts in
the journal after generating auto postings or periodic transactions.
Changing the return type of journalAddForecast and journalTransform
reduces partiality.
To get the previous behaviour for modifyTransaction, use modifyTransaction mempty.
In Amount, aismultiplier is a boolean flag that will always be False,
except for in TMPostingRules, where it indicates whether the posting
rule is a multiplier. It is therefore unnecessary in the vast majority
of cases. This posting pulls this flag out of Amount and puts it into
TMPostingRule, so it is only kept around when necessary.
This changes the parsing of journals somewhat. Previously you could
include an * before an amount anywhere in a Journal, and it would
happily parse and set the aismultiplier flag true. This will now fail
with a parse error: * is now only acceptable before an amount within an
auto posting rule.
Any usage of the library in which the aismultiplier field is read or set
should be removed. If you truly need its functionality, you should
switch to using TMPostingRule.
This changes the JSON output of Amount, as it will no longer include
aismultiplier.
Also corrects a regression introduced in
8ab29f84b32288a34ae7627a2204081fae31900f where transaction modifier
postings without multipliers would incorrectly be filtered by commodity.
instead of a list of Amounts. No longer export Mixed constructor, to
keep API clean (if you really need it, you can import it directly from
Hledger.Data.Types). We also ensure the JSON representation of
MixedAmount doesn't change: it is stored as a normalised list of
Amounts.
This commit improves performance. Here are some indicative results.
hledger reg -f examples/10000x1000x10.journal
- Maximum residency decreases from 65MB to 60MB (8% decrease)
- Total memory in use decreases from 178MiB to 157MiB (12% decrease)
hledger reg -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal
- Maximum residency decreases from 69MB to 60MB (13% decrease)
- Total memory in use decreases from 198MiB to 153MiB (23% decrease)
hledger bal -f examples/10000x1000x10.journal
- Total heap usage decreases from 6.4GB to 6.0GB (6% decrease)
- Total memory in use decreases from 178MiB to 153MiB (14% decrease)
hledger bal -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal
- Total heap usage decreases from 7.3GB to 6.9GB (5% decrease)
- Total memory in use decreases from 196MiB to 185MiB (5% decrease)
hledger bal -M -f examples/10000x1000x10.journal
- Total heap usage decreases from 16.8GB to 10.6GB (47% decrease)
- Total time decreases from 14.3s to 12.0s (16% decrease)
hledger bal -M -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal
- Total heap usage decreases from 108GB to 48GB (56% decrease)
- Total time decreases from 62s to 41s (33% decrease)
If you never directly use the constructor Mixed or pattern match against
it then you don't need to make any changes. If you do, then do the
following:
- If you really care about the individual Amounts and never normalise
your MixedAmount (for example, just storing `Mixed amts` and then
extracting `amts` as a pattern match, then use should switch to using
[Amount]. This should just involve removing the `Mixed` constructor.
- If you ever call `mixed`, `normaliseMixedAmount`, or do any sort of
amount arithmetic (+), (-), then you should replace the constructor
`Mixed` with the function `mixed`. To extract the list of Amounts, use
the function `amounts`.
- If you ever call `normaliseMixedAmountSquashPricesForDisplay`, you can
replace that with `mixedAmountStripPrices`. (N.B. this does something
slightly different from `normaliseMixedAmountSquashPricesForDisplay`,
but I don't think there's any use case for squashing prices and then
keeping the first of the squashed prices around. If you disagree let
me know.)
- Any remaining calls to `normaliseMixedAmount` can be removed, as that
is now the identity function.
Exceptions are for dealing with the pamount field, which is really just
dealing with an unnormalised list of amounts.
This creates an API for dealing with MixedAmount, so we never have to
access the internals outside of Hledger.Data.Amount.
Also remove a comment, since it looks like #1207 has been resolved.
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.
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.
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.
This removes transactionModifierToFunction's extra query parameter;
the rewrite command sets it in the TransactionModifier instead, which
I think is equivalent. I had to change one functional test, but it
seems correct now, so perhaps it wasn't working right before ?
