-V (and -X) now respects a report end date set with -e/-p/date: when
choosing the valuation date, similar to hledger 1.14 and Ledger.
This means that -V/-X aren't exactly like either --value=end or
--value=now. The "Effect of --value on reports" doc has been extended
accordingly, and much of it has been reworded and made more accurate.
Compound balance reports showing ending balances (eg balancesheet),
now show the ending date (single column) or range of ending
dates (multi column) in their title. ,, (double comma) is used
rather than - (hyphen) to suggest a sequence of discrete dates
rather than a continuous span.
Transaction prices were being collapsed/misreported after close/open;
this is fixed. Now each separately-priced amount gets its own posting,
and only the last of these (for each commodity) gets a balance
assertion. Also the equity posting's amount is now always shown
explicitly, which in multicommodity situations means that multiple
equity postings are shown. The upshot is that a balance -B report
will be unchanged after closing & opening transactions.
To reduce confusion, multiperiod balance reports using -H/--historical
or --cumulative, which show end balances, no longer show a Totals
column since summing end balances generally doesn't make sense.
Also the underlying MultiBalanceReport now returns zero for those
totals when in cumulative or historical mode.
This feature turns out to be quite involved, as valuation interacts
with the many report variations. Various bugs/specs have been
fixed/clarified relating to register's running total, balance totals
etc. Eg register's total should now be the sum of the posting amount
values, not the values of the original sums. Current level of support
has been documented.
When valuing at transaction date, we once again do early valuation of
all posting amounts, to get more correct results. variants. This means
--value-at=t can be slower than other valuation modes when there are
many transactions and many prices. This could be revisited for
optimisation when things are more settled.
Instead of converting all journal amounts to value early on, we now
convert just the report amounts to value, before rendering.
This was basically how it originally worked (for the balance command),
but now it's built in to the four basic reports used by print,
register, balance and their variants - Entries, Postings, Balance,
MultiBalance - each of which now has its own xxValue helper.
This should mostly fix -V's performance when there are many
transactions and prices (the price lookups could still be optimised),
and allow more flexibility for report-specific value calculations.
+------------------------------------------++-----------------+-------------------+--------------------------+
| || hledger.999.pre | hledger.999.1sort | hledger.999.after-report |
+==========================================++=================+===================+==========================+
| -f examples/1000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 1.08 | 0.96 | 0.76 |
| -f examples/2000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 1.65 | 1.05 | 0.73 |
| -f examples/3000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 2.43 | 1.58 | 0.84 |
| -f examples/4000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 4.39 | 1.96 | 0.93 |
| -f examples/5000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 7.75 | 2.99 | 1.07 |
| -f examples/6000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 11.21 | 3.72 | 1.16 |
| -f examples/7000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 16.91 | 4.72 | 1.19 |
| -f examples/8000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 27.10 | 9.83 | 1.40 |
| -f examples/9000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 39.73 | 15.00 | 1.51 |
| -f examples/10000x1000x10.journal bal -V || 50.72 | 25.61 | 2.15 |
+------------------------------------------++-----------------+-------------------+--------------------------+
There's one new limitation, not yet resolved: -V once again can pick a
valuation date in the future, if no report end date is specified and
the journal has future-dated transactions. We prefer to avoid that,
but reports currently are pure and don't have access to today's date.
Hopefully this is will do it. This restores the past behaviour:
- parsing prices in balance assertions/assignments
- ignoring them in assertions
- using them in assignments
- and printing them
and clarifies tests and docs.
Going with option 1b from the issue: calculated and asserted amounts
are compared exactly, disregarding display precision.
But now balance assertion failure messages show those exact amounts at
full precision, avoiding confusion.
Surprisingly, balance assertions were checking to maximum precision,
which meant it was possible, with a display-precision-limiting
commodity directive, to have a failing assertion with the error
message showing asserted and actual amounts that looked the same.
Now we round the calculated account balance (but not the asserted
balance) to display precision before comparing. This should ensure
assertions always behave as you would expect from visual inspection.
- parse a period expression by first extracting words separated by
single spaces, then by "re-parsing" this text with 'periodexprp'
- this way, the period expression parsers do not need to know about
the single- or double-space rules
A different approach: instead of converting to unit prices and fiddling
with the display precision, just multiply the total prices by the same
multiplier (and keep them positive).
This seems a little more natural. I'm not sure if one of these will be
more robust than the other.
Transaction modifier multipliers have never multiplied total-priced amounts
correctly (and prior to hledger 1.10, this could generate unbalanced
transactions).
Now, the generated postings in this situation will have unit prices,
and an extra digit of display precision. This helps ensure that
the modified transaction will remain balanced. I'm not sure yet if
it's guaranteed.
These commands now detect the account types declared by account directives.
Whenever such declarations are not present, built-in regular expressions
are used, as before.
A bunch of account sorting changes that got intermingled.
First, account codes have been dropped. They can still be parsed and
will be ignored, for now. I don't know if anyone used them.
Instead, account display order is now controlled by the order of account
directives, if any. From the mail list:
I'd like to drop account codes, introduced in hledger 1.9 to control
the display order of accounts. In my experience,
- they are tedious to maintain
- they duplicate/compete with the natural tendency to arrange account
directives to match your mental chart of accounts
- they duplicate/compete with the tree structure created by account
names
and it gets worse if you think about using them more extensively,
eg to classify accounts by type.
Instead, I plan to just let the position (parse order) of account
directives determine the display order of those declared accounts.
Undeclared accounts will be displayed after declared accounts,
sorted alphabetically as usual.
Second, the various account sorting modes have been implemented more
widely and more correctly. All sorting modes (alphabetically, by account
declaration, by amount) should now work correctly in almost all commands
and modes (non-tabular and tabular balance reports, tree and flat modes,
the accounts command). Sorting bugs have been fixed, eg #875.
Only the budget report (balance --budget) does not yet support sorting.
Comprehensive functional tests for sorting in the accounts and balance
commands have been added. If you are confused by some sorting behaviour,
studying these tests is recommended, as sorting gets tricky.
This removes transactionModifierToFunction's extra query parameter;
the rewrite command sets it in the TransactionModifier instead, which
I think is equivalent. I had to change one functional test, but it
seems correct now, so perhaps it wasn't working right before ?
