I just upgraded to latest git master and I am no longer able to enter transactions in the ledger without a payee. The enter button is disabled unless a payee is entered. By compiling earlier versions I have found that the bug was introduced with Allan's commit 94935cf78e. Prior to this I have always been able to enter transactions without a payee. This affects deposits, transfers and withdrawals. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Enter a transaction using the ledger form. Enter a category, date and amount and leave from/pay to blank. Actual Results: Cannot enter the transaction until a payee is also entered. Expected Results: Should be able to enter a transaction without a payee.
I just discovered this also affects the schedule editor. For schedules which transfer between two accounts why do I have to enter a payee? For scheduled deposits and withdrawals it is less likely that I would want to leave the payee blank but I would still like to have the option as it always used to be.
(In reply to comment #1) > I just discovered this also affects the schedule editor. For schedules which > transfer between two accounts why do I have to enter a payee? For scheduled > deposits and withdrawals it is less likely that I would want to leave the > payee blank but I would still like to have the option as it always used to > be. I just made a reply to your comment #1, which collided with #2, but here's my response anyway. "(In reply to comment #0) > I just upgraded to latest git master and I am no longer able to enter > transactions in the ledger without a payee. The enter button is disabled > unless a payee is entered. By compiling earlier versions I have found that > the bug was introduced with Allan's commit 94935cf78e. Prior to this I have > always been able to enter transactions without a payee. This affects > deposits, transfers and withdrawals. I prefer to think of it as a feature, rather than a bug! The change was made deliberately, rather than by accident. It came about following discovery of several inconsistencies where the Enter/OK was not enabled when it should have been, or vice versa. See Bug 314955. I did flag the issue there, and canvassed - " It would be good to know what fields should be regarded as mandatory for transaction entry. I don't know if some looseness is allowed, because of importing, but then it is quite strictly laid out for investments. I can see the cause of some of the symptoms I noticed, but don't know where to draw the line." As I got no response, I went ahead. I couldn't really see why a payee name would not be required, but I'd be interested to know your view. " So far as the last sentence is concerned, I see now your issue, and will look into it again.
For transfers, at least, I would really like to be able to leave payee blank (as well as category). For deposit and withdrawal, I do sometimes leave payee blank, but I can accept requiring one. I've already created a "Misc" category, so I suppose I can create a "Misc" payee. I think I stayed quiet for your earlier request for comments because I agreed with what was said, and I probably thought you were only asking about investment transactions.
(In reply to comment #3) > For transfers, at least, I would really like to be able to leave payee blank > (as well as category). For deposit and withdrawal, I do sometimes leave > payee blank, but I can accept requiring one. I've already created a "Misc" > category, so I suppose I can create a "Misc" payee. I think I stayed quiet > for your earlier request for comments because I agreed with what was said, > and I probably thought you were only asking about investment transactions. If Payee is optional, and Category, too, what constitutes a valid transaction? When should the OK/Enter be enabled?
Payee should be optional, but a transaction should always have at least 2 splits (either a category or another account). On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:50 AM, allan <agander93@gmail.com> wrote: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=321108 > > --- Comment #4 from allan <agander93@gmail.com> --- > (In reply to comment #3) >> For transfers, at least, I would really like to be able to leave payee blank >> (as well as category). For deposit and withdrawal, I do sometimes leave >> payee blank, but I can accept requiring one. I've already created a "Misc" >> category, so I suppose I can create a "Misc" payee. I think I stayed quiet >> for your earlier request for comments because I agreed with what was said, >> and I probably thought you were only asking about investment transactions. > > If Payee is optional, and Category, too, what constitutes a valid transaction? > When should the OK/Enter be enabled? > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are the assignee for the bug. > _______________________________________________ > KMyMoney-devel mailing list > KMyMoney-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmymoney-devel
> I prefer to think of it as a feature, rather than a bug! The change was > made deliberately, rather than by accident. It came about following > discovery of several inconsistencies where the Enter/OK was not enabled when > it should have been, or vice versa. See Bug 314955. > > I did flag the issue there, and canvassed - > " > It would be good to know what fields should be regarded as mandatory for > transaction entry. I don't know if some looseness is allowed, because of > importing, but then it is quite strictly laid out for investments. > Allan, apologies if I missed some earlier discussions about this. I can see you did ask for opinions. However, in my defense, Bug 314955 makes no mention of making payee mandatory. In fact, under expected results it says "The two entry methods should behave similarly, so far as the amount field is concerned." suggesting an inconsistency with the amount field.
(In reply to comment #6) > > I prefer to think of it as a feature, rather than a bug! The change was > > made deliberately, rather than by accident. It came about following > > discovery of several inconsistencies where the Enter/OK was not enabled when > > it should have been, or vice versa. See Bug 314955. > > > > I did flag the issue there, and canvassed - > > " > > It would be good to know what fields should be regarded as mandatory for > > transaction entry. I don't know if some looseness is allowed, because of > > importing, but then it is quite strictly laid out for investments. > > > > Allan, apologies if I missed some earlier discussions about this. I can see > you did ask for opinions. However, in my defense, Bug 314955 makes no > mention of making payee mandatory. In fact, under expected results it says > "The two entry methods should behave similarly, so far as the amount field > is concerned." suggesting an inconsistency with the amount field. That's OK, Dave. I just wanted to point out that I hadn't just suddenly decided to make the change on a personal whim. There was at least one other bug, 311481, that contributed to the realisation that things were not ideal. I'll revisit this shortly.
Git commit 7c6b050b0269b5651fb10c58c8d4a81d1de2c3f9 by Allan Anderson. Committed on 01/07/2013 at 10:49. Pushed by allananderson into branch 'master'. Related: bug 321317 M +1 -2 kmymoney/dialogs/keditscheduledlg.cpp M +36 -31 kmymoney/dialogs/transactioneditor.cpp M +0 -10 kmymoney/widgets/kguiutils.cpp http://commits.kde.org/kmymoney/7c6b050b0269b5651fb10c58c8d4a81d1de2c3f9