Version: unspecified (using KDE 1.2) OS: Linux On the Accounts page, the Total Balance of an Investment Account was nonzero (account unrolled). I traced this back to a QIF import of a stock that I had not yet defined in this account. The import skipped Buy and Sell activities, but did process an Add Shares activity. The corresponding Security had no name (field was blank). Everything else in this Add Shares record was correct. The nonzero Total Balance of the Investment account was equal to the number of added shares. Furthermore, since the Total Balance was equal to the number of added shares, KMM must have assigned a price of 1 Euro per share here. This is not correct. The actual value is Undefined. As I suppose KMM cannot handle this, I think a zero value would be a better default here (perhaps this should be filed as a separated bug). KMyMoney 1.0.4 under KDE 3.5.10 BTW: Gnucash detects the QIF import of an undefined stock and lets the user define the stock on the fly. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: I repeated the same QIF import and got a second line of Add Shares. KMM did not identify it was a duplicate. The minimum would be for KMM to skip the import of all activities of the undefined security.
Could you post a test QIF for this for those of us that are not familiar with the format. If there would be a test file attached together with you very detailed description it would enable me to at least implement your minimum requirement - skip that activity.
I set up a separate kmy account and tried reproducing the problem but I did not succeed so far. This time I did get an error window saying the investment did not exist, and none of the operations was imported. I'm sure I am not replicating the exact environment in my trial file. I will continue working on it and get back to you. Thanks.
Is this report still relevant in a newer version?
I think you can close this. Since it's so long ago, I doubt I can ever reproduce it. Thanks.
(In reply to Jan from comment #4) > I think you can close this. Since it's so long ago, I doubt I can ever > reproduce it. Thanks. OK, I'll close it as Invalid, the closest option, I think.
.(In reply to Jan from comment #4) > I think you can close this. Since it's so long ago, I doubt I can ever > reproduce it. Thanks. OK, I'll close it as Invalid, the closest option, I think. Second attempt