Windows 1.5.21 has calculation error in account view

[mike9665]

Discussed in #5121

^{Originally posted by mike9665 September 23, 2022}
I updated from 1.5.20 to 1.5.21 and a deposit dated today is not included in the balance. If I change the date to yesterday the balance is correct. I have also fallen back to 1.5.20 and the balance is correct when the deposit is dated today.
Mike

[whalley]

When you say 'not included in the balance' what do you mean?

Is it the balance at A or B in above screenshot. The value at B is dependant on how you sort the transaction view.

[mike9665]

HI Mark It is the balance at B, I'm viewing all transactions and I'm sorted on descending date.

…

On Fri, 23 Sept 2022 at 08:38, Mark Whalley ***@***.***> wrote: When you say 'not included in the balance' what do you mean? [image: CleanShot 2022-09-23 at 08 34 17] <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/487345/191912241-d438de4f-e120-4786-8998-cfc7fd220c73.png> Is it the balance at A or B in above screenshot. The value at B is dependant on how you sort the transaction view. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5122 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKZJA7WE3UADKYXUW2DOUZTV7VM7JANCNFSM6AAAAAAQTW4IGQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[whalley]

As noted, the balance displayed will differ depending upon sort. Descending and Ascending date will have different results. With descending date the first item (latest date) will hold the balance, and with ascending date the last item (latest date) will hold the balance. Is this what you are seeing.

Descending date

Ascending date

[mike9665]

HI If I sort date,ascending I see a different value in the balance column (B from your first screen shot) from when I sort date,descending. The balance from date,ascending is the correct value.

…

On Fri, 23 Sept 2022 at 09:09, Mark Whalley ***@***.***> wrote: As noted, the balance displayed will differ depending upon sort. Descending and Ascending date will have different results. With descending date the first item (latest date) will hold the balance, and with ascending date the last item (latest date) will hold the balance. Is this what you are seeing. Descending date [image: CleanShot 2022-09-23 at 09 05 42] <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/487345/191917249-df9ead34-c9a8-4cee-af2d-a64d237f749b.png> Ascending date [image: CleanShot 2022-09-23 at 09 06 09] <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/487345/191917503-e88d9140-a708-4297-9fc6-93b5d1bcb9cd.png> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5122 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKZJA7VFAXR5O4SN4NMM5CDV7VQUVANCNFSM6AAAAAAQTW4IGQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[whalley]

Can you please share a screen shot of what the issue is, I'm struggling to help without this.

[whalley]

It may be related to a 'sort refresh' error (#5108) in the current build.... Does the build here help?
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/moneymanagerex/moneymanagerex/builds/44859308/job/v3t4q2w20wm4me62/artifacts

[mike9665]

I have installed the beat version 1.5.22 and the behavior is unchanged. This is the view and sort I normally use. The true balance value is 1482.44 for September 23rd [image: image.png] I have move the £175.00 credit entry to September 22 and the balance is now correct. [image: image.png] I have restored the credit balance date to September 23 and move the £10 withdrawal entry to September 22 and the balance is correct. [image: image.png] The 4th screen snip is the date,ascending view with the two transactions I edited above from today restored to todays date. [image: image.png]

…

On Fri, 23 Sept 2022 at 09:42, Mark Whalley ***@***.***> wrote: It may be related to a 'sort refresh' error in the current build.... Does the build here help? https://ci.appveyor.com/project/moneymanagerex/moneymanagerex/builds/44859308/job/v3t4q2w20wm4me62/artifacts — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5122 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKZJA7SXWGZXYZNQD3CVTV3V7VUOFANCNFSM6AAAAAAQTW4IGQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[whalley]

Images not visible. Please don't respond by mail. Can you post here: #5122

[mike9665]

I have installed the beat version 1.5.22 and the behavior is unchanged.

snip1 This is the view and sort I normally use. The true balance value is 1482.44 for September 23rd

snip2 I have move the £175.00 credit entry to September 22 and the balance is now correct.

snip3 I have restored the credit balance date to September 23 and move the £10 withdrawal entry to September 22 and the balance is correct.

snip4 The 4th screen snip is the date,ascending view with the two transactions I edited above from today restored to todays date.

[mike9665]

picture 1 is snip3
picture 2 is snip2
picture 3 is snip1
picture 3 is snip4

[whalley]

Have reordered the images!

[n-stein]

I think the issue is the balance shown in the list doesn't take into account the sort order of the secondary sort column.

Example: If you put a primary sort by "Date" descending and a secondary sort by "ID" ascending you run into the issue where the top record for a given date doesn't show the current account balance.

[whalley]

@n-stein Yes, this maybe indeed be the case. @mike9665 has the ID field hidden. There was some discussion around users possibly being confused by the secondary sort when we originally looked at this. #4690.

Maybe we:

1. Provide an option (default=OFF) for supporting the secondary sort functionality - most people will leave it as-is.
2. When DATE is the primary sort key then secondary is ALWAYS set to ID in the SAME sort direction

I favour option (2).

[n-stein]

@whalley I think option 2 would work, but breaks the consistency of the "Secondary Sort" behavior. You couldn't achieve the below view where secondary sort is by Payee and primary sort is by date:

What about changing the behavior of the Model_Account::transaction method to sort by secondary sort order followed by date instead of the default ID then date here?

moneymanagerex/src/model/Model_Account.cpp

Lines 198 to 199 in b647e45

	std::sort(trans.begin(), trans.end());
	std::stable_sort(trans.begin(), trans.end(), SorterByTRANSDATE());

[whalley]

I feel the main issue here is with users who don't need, or more likely don't realise, that the secondary sort function exists.

They just click DATE and assume that things are sorted in chronological order which means DATE (and ID to put some order to the the IDs on the same date).

In your example with DATE/PAYEE order it is going to cause confusion as the Balance against ID 53 does not match the headline 'Account Bal:'. Note this DATE/ID order is used across the application to represent the account balance.

[n-stein]

I think the DATE/PAYEE order is only confusing right now specifically because ID 53 does not match the headline balance. If the balance was calculated by DATE/PAYEE as displayed rather than DATE/ID then 53 would contain the headline balance, no?

I see how changing the DATE/ID function of Model_Account::transaction could cause issues due to its wide usage. We could instead include the secondary and primary sort between these two lines:

moneymanagerex/src/mmcheckingpanel.cpp

Lines 160 to 161 in b647e45

	const auto i = isAllAccounts_ ? Model_Checking::instance().all() : Model_Account::transaction(this->m_account);
	for (const auto& tran : i)

[whalley]

I'll let others contribute to the discussion. I'm a little wary about changing the balance calculations as it may cause further confusion. I think there is simplicity/comfort in knowing that the balance line against a transaction remains constant regardless of sorting.

[whalley]

Having re-read #4690, I'm now more convinced that sorting on Date should sort by ID (as the secondary) also. @vomikan @tactilis views? I feel the 'balance' field should always attempt to reflect what the user would see on a bank statement. (maybe even more accurate when we add a 'time' field #2729

[tactilis]

I'm now more convinced that sorting on Date should sort by ID (as the secondary) also.

We did discuss this along the way. It is the logical thing to do because, as I assert here #4690 (comment), I think relatively few people have a need to do anything other than the standard Date | ID sort.

I still think the idea of having a visual indication of the secondary sort column would be helpful. Maybe not the dashed up/down arrow suggested previously but some way of knowing what the secondary column is - perhaps a tooltip that is shown when you hover over the primary sort column header?

Not sure what's for the best. 1.5.21 sorting has stirred up a lot of comments!

[whalley]

Not sure if we can add tooltips to the column header.

What about adding some sort information to the header panel?

[grumpy235]

First time I displayed my transactions using my default selection of "View all" and this fix

So I get Date/Date which is perhaps a little confusing for some - it was for me :-)
When I click Date column to force a sort then I get

as expected

[whalley]

@grumpy235 Good spot, the secondary sort default before any setting is saved was also DATE. Have now set to ID.

[PMaff]

I do think that the balance is only correct, if the items are ordered by date (low-> high date or high-> low date).
I always sort by date to have the last transaction on top.

So maybe we can hide the balance column as soon as the sort is not done on date?
Or enter some hint, as soon as not all transactions are shown or the order is not done by date (1.5.21):

The secondary sort arrow e.g. does not
show on the top of the ID column (1.5.22beta) but this may also confuse:

Is it possible to switch off secondary sort completely?
Where is

• sort by Date
• sort by Payee (secondary sort is now Date)
• sort by ID (secondary sort is now Payee)
• sort by Payee (secondary sort is now by ID)

described?

[whalley]

The balance is ALWAYS calculated as on a bank statement, i.e. date (or more strictly DATE/ID) order. Having the balance displayed even when not sorting by date can often be useful as it still represents the balance when the transaction was posted.

The secondary sort on teh column headers was not implemented to avoid confusion, it just shows the last (primary) sort order selected by the user. Having the primary and secondary sort displayed alongside the transaction view information gives further information.

Is it possible to switch off secondary sort completely?

No.

Where is ..... described?

Where is anything described? We have no documentation that is kept up-to-date, there is no resource to do it. It would be great to have a technical author to write all this.

[Patricen1]

It looks like the issue is not closed within 1.6.0 version.
Within account view, some withdrawal operations are added to the balancewhile some of the deposit operations are substracted from the balance.