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

[Alvaro Soliverez]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Houlden <djhoulden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Only unmarked transactions are used.