Re: Call for testing experimental patch

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

Hi Tony,

I think it is too late to change the name of the table to
transactions, but I will consider it.

On 9/19/06, Tony Fraser <..hidden..> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 11:34 -0700, Tony Fraser wrote:
> > I wonder if the 'table' field should be renamed 'module'? See
> > CA::all_transactions(), GL::all_transactions() and possibly (AR|
> > AP)::all_transactions() to see where I'm going with this. We could
> > drastically reduce the complexity of the enormous queries generated by
> > these subroutines with a join to the new table and it would allow
> > easier
> > integration of add-on modules into the trial balance and GL
> > transaction
> > reports.
>
> On further investigation I think there's more to this than I first
> thought. I'd still like to get rid of the hard coding of "ar", "ap" and
> "gl" as the only tables included in these reports and the necessity to
> patch CA.pm and GL.pm if you want to integrate new modules. I'm starting
> to think it will be necessary to have both a "table" and a "module"
> field in the new table although the "table" field will be a bit
> redundant in a way.

I would like to get rid of that problem too.  At least this way, one
could use left joins instead of UNIONs...  but it is still a ways a
way...

Eventually, it may be possible to merge as many fields as possible
into the transaction_ledger table.  This might largely reduce our
dependency on other tables (in particular, gl) and would allow for
simpler GL reports.
> This restriction is something that has bothered me about SQL Ledger for
> several years but I've never really invested the time to come up with a
> good solution, mainly because every time I dig into it I don't find a
> way of doing it without drastically changing the schema.
Well, we welcome ideas on this.  I think that moving some things into
stored procedures may allow for some more flexibility in this area,
but this hasn't happened yet.

> I'm out of time to look at it further right now. I'll look at it again
> soon. I'm guessing that this is one of those things that's not going to
> make it into 1.1 and will have to wait for a future version.

Well, feel free to share your thoughts with us.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers