Bug 440696

Summary: Reversing splits that are part of the same transaction will create x times transactions
Product: [Applications] kmymoney Reporter: Dawid Wróbel <me>
Component: generalAssignee: KMyMoney Devel Mailing List <kmymoney-devel>
Status: REPORTED ---    
Severity: normal    
Priority: NOR    
Version First Reported In: 5.1.2   
Target Milestone: ---   
Platform: Other   
OS: Other   
Latest Commit: Version Fixed/Implemented In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description Dawid Wróbel 2021-08-07 14:39:50 UTC 
SUMMARY
Reversing a transaction (A) which is in fact a split of another transaction (B), will create as many new transactions as there were splits in B. This is likely to behave the same when Duplicating a transaction, since the code is basically the same.


STEPS TO REPRODUCE
1. Select a transaction that is a split of another transaction.
2. Revert or Duplicate it


OBSERVED RESULT
Several new transactions are created, one for each of the splits in the original transaction.


EXPECTED RESULT
Just a single transaction should be created with no splits in it.
Comment 1 Jack 2021-08-07 14:56:31 UTC 
Is it creating one new transaction with all the splits from the original transaction, or is it actually creating one transaction for each split?  (The latter would be a bunch of unbalanced transaction, which makes it even more of a problem.)  I think the underlying problem is that when viewing a split (in the Category View, for example) it appears to be a transaction, but it isn't - it is only one split from the transaction.  Perhaps we should consider finding a way to indicate in a ledger that the item is only one split in a transaction with multiple splits.
Comment 2 Dawid Wróbel 2021-08-07 16:26:06 UTC 
Jack, 

It is creating one transaction for each split. I agree about the confusion over how we display splits. At the end of the day I think the way GnuCash displays split transactions in their ledger is a superior UX: they simply show all the splits upfront, and semantically there isn't a *main* transaction there – it's only a matter of which account is it looked at from.