[Kmymoney-devel] [kmymoney4] [Bug 337251] Can't save until default is touched

[Allan]

On 30/07/14 22:53, george at wildturkeyranch.net wrote:
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337251
>
> --- Comment #24 from george at wildturkeyranch.net ---
> (In reply to allan from comment #23)
>> On 29/07/14 16:38, george at wildturkeyranch.net wrote:
>>> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337251
>>>
>>> --- Comment #22 from george at wildturkeyranch.net ---
>>> (In reply to allan from comment #21)
>>>> On 28/07/14 17:43, george at wildturkeyranch.net wrote:
>>>>> Quicken (version 2011)
>>>>> does not supply "L" records.
>>>>
>>>> I want to be clear about this point.  Are you saying that it doesn't
>>>> *ever* produce "L" records, or that is doesn't the way you use it?  For
>>>> instance is there any difference between how it exports a transaction
>>>> that has a category, or how it exports a transaction that does a
>>>> transfer to/from another, named account, or how it handles a transaction
>>>> from an investment account having a brokerage account?
>>>>
>>>> QIF is a very loose 'standard', but Quicken itself has documented the
>>>> use of "L" records, so it would be surprising if it has just dropped
>>>> them altogether.  If KMM tries to cope with such a change, then the full
>>>> picture will be needed.
>>>>
>>>> Allan
>>>
>>> I am only talking about the unified investment account transactions where you
>>> will find 'L' records for transfers but not for the investment transactions.
>>>
>>> By the way, my filter supplies these and also separates investment accounts
>>> into two accounts to match KMM.  Only problem I see is the DIV transactions end
>>> up with the 'L' record taken as both a transfer and a cat.  Not sure what is
>>> happening here.
>>>
>>
>> What has been the 'standard', up to now, is that in 'L' records, if the
>> 'L' is followed with a name in brackets [], then the name is an account,
>> whereas 'L' followed by a name with no brackets, then that is a category.
>>
>> If your original Quicken file follows that, but gives a problem, then
>> I'd need to look at that with your file.
>>
>> So far as the 'X' issue is concerned, I *could* make a change to cope
>> with that, but I'm fearful that earlier files from other users would
>> then give trouble.
>>
>> Allan

Hi
Comments interspersed below.

> The 'L' record in non-investment accounts seems fine.  I don't see 'L' records
> in investment accounts except in transfer entries, e.g.:
>
> D4/28' 6
> NDiv
> YFDRXX FIDELITY CASH RESERVES
> CR
> U180.05
> T180.05
> MDIVIDEND RECEIVED
> ^
> If I add (in my 'filter') something like:
>
> L[]
>
> The entry shows up in the KMM FIDELITY (Brokerage) account as I think it
> should, however in the KMM FIDELITY account in the 'Edit' window it shows
> FIDELITY (Brokerage) as the entry in both the Account and the Interest field.
>
> Should I also add an 'L' record such as:
> LDiv
> ?

If I create a QIF file with your data exactly as you show, it doesn't 
import as an investment, but as a checking transaction.

If I precede it with "!Type:Invst", then it imports.  The activity shows 
as Dividend, as does the category, and the transfer account as FIDELITY 
(Brokerage).  There is a split showing the Dividend category and amount. 
  In FIDELITY (Brokerage), initially, the Details first line shows the 
security name, suffixed (Dividend), the second line shows Investment 
transaction, and the Memo shows DIVIDEND RECEIVED.  If I now double 
click it, and accept the warning, Split transaction now shows, with two 
lines - investAccount:FDRXX  FIDELITY CASH RESERVES, with amount zero, 
and the second line shows Dividend and the amount, both with the memo.

So, that seems to show as I would expect, and without any 'L' record. 
That is because if no account is specified, the brokerage account is 
used automatically, being created if it doesn't exist.

It doesn't seem to be as you say, unless you do also have the 
"!Type:Invst" line but didn't mention it.

I'm using the development version, and I know some changes have been 
made in the last few months, which may not all be in 4.6.4.

> Is it OK to have two 'L' records?
>

I would say that that would result in unspecified results!

Allan