I'm working on saving/restoring scheduled transactions, and have some
questions:
1) Accounts - The only difference I can see between regular accounts and
the accounts created for scheduled transactions is in the currency - the
currency for scheduled transactions is in the "template" namespace.
Any
Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm working on saving/restoring scheduled transactions, and have some
> questions:
>
> 1) Accounts - The only difference I can see between regular accounts and
> the accounts created for scheduled transactions is in the currency - the
> currency for sc
On Fri, 2006-08-12 at 18:20 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'm working on saving/restoring scheduled transactions, and have some
> > questions:
> >
> > 1) Accounts - The only difference I can see between regular accounts and
> > the accounts created
Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The main difference is the root.. SXes all live in their own AccountGroup,
>> separate from the CoA. Why do you need anything special? Why can't you
>> load the SXes too?
>
> I can. I need to look into how AccountGroups are used. Right now, what
On Fri, 2006-08-12 at 23:10 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Phil Longstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> The main difference is the root.. SXes all live in their own AccountGroup,
> >> separate from the CoA. Why do you need anything special? Why can't you
> >> load the SXes too?
> >
> > I c
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 17:34 -0500, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> I'm working on saving/restoring scheduled transactions, and have some
> questions:
>
> 1) Accounts - The only difference I can see between regular accounts and
> the accounts created for scheduled transactions is in the currency - the
> cu
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:53:35PM -0500, Josh Sled wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 17:34 -0500, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> > I'm working on saving/restoring scheduled transactions, and have some
> > questions:
> >
> > 1) Accounts - The only difference I can see between regular accounts and
> > the ac
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (*) This really should be fixed: the template-transaction accounts
>> should probably be a more literal mirror of the real account tree, in
>> terms of types and commodities. The whole point of using real Accounts
>> and Transactions for the template
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 09:22:15PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> (*) This really should be fixed: the template-transaction accounts
> >> should probably be a more literal mirror of the real account tree, in
> >> terms of types and commodities. The
Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not disagreeing about Invoices. AFAICT, Invoices already have the
> design feature that I think SXs should have - they use real accounts,
> transactions, and splits, and just note in the transaction KVP that
> this is an invoice transaction.
Not
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:21:36PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I'm not disagreeing about Invoices. AFAICT, Invoices already have the
> >design feature that I think SXs should have - they use real accounts,
> >transactions, and splits, and just no
Josh Sled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (*) This really should be fixed: the template-transaction accounts
> should probably be a more literal mirror of the real account tree, in
> terms of types and commodities. The whole point of using real Accounts
> and Transactions for the template transacti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Shoemaker schrieb:
>>> I'm just saying SXs could use the real engine
>>> objects, just like Invoices. The only difference is that the engine
>>> has to learn that "real" SX transactions aren't _that_ real. :)
>>>
>> Except Invoices don't either,
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:47:10AM +0100, Christian Stimming wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Chris Shoemaker schrieb:
> >>> I'm just saying SXs could use the real engine
> >>> objects, just like Invoices. The only difference is that the engine
> >>> has to learn that
Christian Stimming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Shoemaker schrieb:
I'm just saying SXs could use the real engine
objects, just like Invoices. The only difference is that the engine
has to learn that "real" SX transactions aren't _that_ real. :)
>>> Except Invoices don't
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 22:06 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> Invoices basically reuse the engine objects. But SXs have:
> struct TTInfo_s
[...]
> which look suspiciously like a Transaction, and
>
> struct TTSplitInfo_s
[...]
> which looks suspiciously like a Split. And then the whole duplicated
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 10:05:21AM -0500, Josh Sled wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 22:06 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> > Invoices basically reuse the engine objects. But SXs have:
> > struct TTInfo_s
> [...]
> > which look suspiciously like a Transaction, and
> >
> > struct TTSplitInfo_s
> [..
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 09:54, Derek Atkins wrote:
> HOWEVER, I think there's another issue here.. When you're doing a
> large import and you create new accounts as part of the import, if you
> then cancel the import process these new accounts don't get backed
> out too.
That's probably not w
Quoting Benoit Grégoire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tuesday 12 December 2006 09:54, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> HOWEVER, I think there's another issue here.. When you're doing a
>> large import and you create new accounts as part of the import, if you
>> then cancel the import process these new accounts
19 matches
Mail list logo
