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).
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.
