[Kmymoney-devel] Re: [Bug 241855] Reconciliation wizard fails to calculate correct difference

[Alvaro Soliverez]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, David Houlden <djhoulden at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 allan wrote:
>> On 29/09/10 16:07, Alvaro Soliverez wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jack <ostroffjh at users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
>> >> On 2010.09.29 10:09, Alvaro Soliverez wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:05 AM, David Houlden <djhoulden at gmail.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 Jack wrote:
>> >>>>> It does make sense, but I'm not sure "None" would help anyone who
>> >>>
>> >>> does
>> >>>
>> >>>>> not already know how reconciliation works.  In the transaction
>> >>>
>> >>> form,
>> >>>
>> >>>>> the field label is "Status" so would a more explicit "Not set"
>> >>>
>> >>> work?
>> >>>
>> >>>>> I'm trying to think about the new user who does not yet understand
>> >>>
>> >>> how
>> >>>
>> >>>>> reconciliation works.  The values of the field are "reconciled" or
>> >>>>> "cleared" or something else, but the third one isn't really another
>> >>>>> value, it just hasn't been set to one of the first two.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Not set" sounds good. In the status filter selection list it
>> >>>
>> >>> appears
>> >>>
>> >>>> as "Not marked".
>> >>>> So what would Alvaro's new message in the reconciliation wizard be?
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not
>> >>>
>> >>>> sure exactly what information or condition it is trying to convey
>> >>>
>> >>> to the
>> >>>
>> >>>> user.
>> >>>
>> >>> Then it would be "Oldest not set transaction" It intends to offer
>> >>> information on what transactions were used to get to the starting
>> >>> balance.
>> >>
>> >> Is there enough room to say "Oldest transaction not set to reconciled
>> >> or cleared" or "Oldest transaction not marked as reconciled or
>> >> cleared" ?  The shorter version is OK, but I think the longer one
>> >> would help new users more.
>> >
>> > I would stay away from long texts. We've been already criticized on
>> > that wizard due to long texts that nobody actually reads.
>>
>> How about 'oldest transaction needing to be reconciled'?
>>
>> Allan
> That would still be misleading IMHO. The date shown in the message is the
> date of the oldest transaction with a blank status. There may be older
> cleared transactions (status of C) which also need to be reconciled.
> Or maybe the date should be the oldest transaction with status C or blank in
> which case Allan's suggestion is a good one.

In that case, we leave the current message, but show the date for
cleared or not reconciled transactions.