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

[David Houlden]

On Wednesday 29 September 2010 Alvaro Soliverez wrote:
> 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.
Alvaro, you said earlier that "It intends to offer information on what 
transactions were used to get to the starting balance". Therefore if the 
status C and blank transactions are both used to get to the starting 
balance then you are right and the date should change but the message stays 
the same. If only status blank transactions are used then the date is 
correct but the message should be different. So, which transactions are 
used to get to the starting balance?