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.
We need this for choosing a valuation date, otherwise, report
functions would have to be in IO or we'd have to pass in yet another
argument.
It's optional because it's useful to be able to create report opts
purely (I think ?) This is not ideal but maybe not a problem.
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.
-V is still quite a bit slower than no -V, but not as much as before:
+===========================================================++=======+
| hledger.999.pre -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal bal || 5.20 |
| hledger.999.pre -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal bal -V || 57.20 |
| hledger.999 -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal bal || 5.34 |
| hledger.999 -f examples/10000x10000x10.journal bal -V || 17.50 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------++-------+
This constraints the easytest dependency to <0.3, because hledger and
hledger-lib currently don't build with 0.3.
Of course the better solution would be to fix the build errors, but easytest-0.3
is not even in stackage nightly yet and I just need it to build right now :-)
I needed to be more careful about ordering, as johannesgerer's original
code was, and the tests missed it. I think I have it now.
Found the PR whose code I have been reworking, it was #438.
