https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361021
--- Comment #11 from NSLW <lukasz.wojnilow...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to allan from comment #10) > (In reply to NSLW from comment #9) > > (In reply to allan from comment #8) > > > (In reply to NSLW from comment #0) > > > > Buy transactions imported by CSV importer always have missing assignment > > > > > > It's not correct to say that they '...always have missing assignment' it > > > is > > > only under certain conditions. > > > > For me it always has missing assignment during import from CSV and empty > > ledger. Do you know conditions under which it doesn't happen? > > Yes. Often, the problem is that a Buy/Sell/ReinvDiv, which involve funds > transfers, does not have the name of the relevant checking/brokerage account > provided. During CSV import of these types, an extra dialog opens that asks > for the name of the checking/brokerage account that is to be used. If this > is correctly entered, then the transaction is not unbalanced. In general, I > do not have a problem, over many years, with missing assignments. I enter the name of checking/brokerage account always correctly and only once for every CSV file. I always have wrong amounts, even for transactions that show as balanced. Can you provide investment statement, you don't have problems with? > > (In reply to allan from comment #7) > > > There is also another issue, with fees sometimes getting the wrong sign, > > > which I identified in https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360129. I > > > think > > > the patch in this current bug may be related. > > > > According to my research bug #360129 can be independently fixed from this > > bug and this bug can be independently fixed from bug #360129. > > Moreover through simple sign changes in my patch I can cause both operations > > to display warning about assignment and not only for sell operations. > > How do you see them correlated? > > I don't see the two bugs as related, except that > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361029 highlighted the fee sign issue. > I'm assuming/hoping that your patch here is for that same problem. I > haven't yet had a chance to look into it. Yes, that's the same issue but the other report supposed to concern other bug, so patch for this bug doesn't fix the other bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
