Yes, I think a clarification would be useful in the interim til the
option is fixed.
Regards,
Adrien
On 10/26/22 7:53 PM, Vincent Dawans wrote:
Yes it is indeed a simplified example I was using. And your second example
is the one that indeed I show as working (the one with all
expense accounts; in my example I just have 2 -- dining and clothes). That
as long as all transactions are included in the time period. But as soon as
you use one of the other filtering options then it also breaks even in that
single-account context since the running balance info attached to each
transaction doesn't actually change (the filtering just hides some
transactions).
Note that if you do it the other way, meaning selecting the checking
account and then sorting by "other accounts" then it also doesn't work
since the running balance is now the one retrieved from the checking
account, but in a completely different order than what is now sorted.
The bottom line is that the "running balance" means "running balance
attached to each transaction in the underlying accounts selected in the
report" and it only makes sense if the report is sorted by primary
accounts. That's it. I think I am going to create a bug report so that at
least there can be some explanation or something added to the option to
mention that. As it stands I think it's really counter-intuitive
considering that the transaction report has so many filtering options and
other ways to sort, all of which render the running balance quite
nonsensical.
_______________________________________________
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
-----
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
