Question about category ledger

[Jack]

Hello Thomas,

On 1/14/19 1:58 AM, Thomas Baumgart wrote:
> Jack,
>
> On Montag, 14. Januar 2019 00:22:56 CET Jack Ostroff wrote:
>
>> I just filed a bug that the ledger, when displaying transactions for a
>> category, does not show the name of that category, but shows the name
>> of the most recent account for which the ledger was displayed.
> That is a known issue and not easy to fix, as the drop down box only contains accounts and no categories. Not sure, how to fix this.
I could probably answer better once I get more familiar with the code, 
but could there be two dropdowns, one with accounts, the other with 
ledgers, and switch the widget as needed?  Or even switch the dropdown 
widget for a text label with the specific category.  That would require 
going back to ledger view to switch categories, but it might be an 
acceptable workaround.  How different would all this be in the new ledger?
>> The other thing I just rediscovered about the category ledger is that,
>> for me, a large number of these transactions are matched, but not yet
>> accepted.  The matches WERE accepted in the actual account ledger which
>> shows that transaction.  I have not yet looked into the XML file to see
>> why the match shows accepted from the perspective of the account, but
>> not of the category.
> A match always happens on a split basis and so does the acceptance. I've never seen any category in the matched state (showing in bold etc.). So how do you come to the conclusion that a "match shows accepted" in the ledger?

Ah, not only is my terminology off, I see where I missed what is 
happening.  I had been thinking of matching by transaction, not by 
split.  By split, it makes sense.  These dividend transactions have 
three splits - the ones for the equity and for the brokerage account are 
OK, but the ones for the category are not yet accepted.  (Since a user 
would hardly ever think or need to look at the ledger for the category - 
under normal use, how would those matched splits ever get accepted?  I 
suppose the only "cost" is carrying the matched transaction within the 
split,perhaps annoying from an aesthetic perspective to look at, but not 
really a problem.

I do still have to wonder why/how a dividend transaction would get 
matched - if I re-import the same transaction it should be a duplicate, 
but I suppose if the internal transaction ID used by Merrill Lynch is 
not really fixed, then it would be seen as match not duplicate.  I don't 
want to switch brokers because of this kind of nonsense, but I'm 
considering it. :-)

>> I'm just reporting here, in case it might reflect some problem with the
>> logic of accepting matched transactions, or of how that acceptance is
>> stored.
> The acceptance itself is not stored at all. The matched state is where a split contains a complete transaction as a member. This is the transaction it was matched against. Once you accept it, this contained transaction is simply discarded. We only store it to be able to 'unmatch' and bring that transaction back into the ledger. So from my perspective things look OK.

Again, inadequate understanding and poor terminology on my part. When a 
match is accepted, the evidence of the match is removed - so the system 
can't tell a single transaction from one which had been matched, but if 
I remember it has been matched, I know.

Summary

- the lack of category name in the account dropdown at the top of the 
ledger is a known problem - perhaps I'll file a wishlist for it, since 
any fix will not be trivial.

- matched splits showing in the category ledger are actually OK, but as 
this is not often viewed, they are unlikely to be seen and accepted.  
There is a slight cost of storage, but no bug.

- since (almost?) all cases I have of these are in Merrill Lynch 
investment accounts, it is possible (even probable) that it is something 
about their OFX that causes matched (instead of duplicate) transactions 
on import.

I'm curious to know how many other folks have these matched splits 
within categories, but I don't suppose there is any reasonable way to 
know.  There are clearly many other things of higher priority.

Thanks for the response and explanation.


Jack