#264 Transaction to asset is added twice to payee list of transac
If I buy an asset from a company, the transaction is added to the transaction list for this company twice. First as "+" corresponding to the transfer of my money to the company, what is correct, but second time as "-" corresponding to the transfer of my asset from money-shape to the shape of fixed asset, what is wrong.
Example: I will take 100.000.-€ from my valet and pay it to developer for a new flat. So now I have a flat (=asset) with a value of 100.000.-€ That is correct. But looking at the balance with the developer, there are two entries one +100.000,-€ and second -100.000.-€ i.e. the balance is "zero".
Actually, there is a big problem making reasonable and not confusing concept for such "half" double entry accounting and even with payees. And there is no other way, because of the "ful" double entry acc. is perfect but for personal use is really too much time consuming. I personally used few years my own solution based on MS Access and I found only one concept which is correct and understandable. And that is, easy to say, strictly distinguish between moving money and between the purpose of the movement. It is very similar to your category approach, but it does not lead to problematic interpretation and exception in rules by working with asset. So may be consider this "small" change in concept. I can take a part on this except I should create a code. :-)
As far as I'm concerned, this is a feature request, not a bug.
You can take it as feature request, if you want. - It is just a question of definition.
I your spreadsheet program will tell you, that 1+1=3, you can sure request new feature consisting in telling the correct result, e.i. that 1+1=2. :-) .... From my point of view, telling that 1+1=3 is a bug.
Yes, the last article could be taken as feature request. I took it just, as an idea, how to avoid such type of bugs and a list of others being at the boarder between confusing and incorrect interpretation of the reality. From my point of view, it was just a tiny try to help with solution of this bug. But you can forget it.
In my turn, I think that this is exactly one more expression of the problem that we currently discuss (https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=x2jb8c6f6c41004251036uffe020bbh42a6c7ac7228eab2%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=kmymoney2-developer)
about the 'transfer' transactions and the way that they are implemented.
Taking in mind that the 'developer' in this example is the 'payee' of this transfer transaction (asset-> asset), this is exactly the #4th problem referred at this thread
(http://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=29110) last year,
and, yes, IT IS a bug! :-)