On 06/09/23 16:54, Eric Altendorf wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 04:00 Daniele Nicolodi <
dan...@grinta.net
> <mailto:
dan...@grinta.net>> wrote:
>
> On 06/09/23 01:27, Sagar Shankar wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Thanks a lot, this works now! A simple line on this in the pad
> > documentation would be great for future reference of others
>
> The behavior is due to the balance directive being treated specially
> when sorting, not to the pad directive. Ordering is relevant for how
> all
> directives are processed. You would have observed similar issues if you
> had a transaction and a balance assertion on the same day. The order in
> which directives are processed is documented. I don't think adding a
> note to the documentation of each directive remembering the ordering
> issue would make the documentation better.
>
>
> Booking decisions and validity are also order dependent.
>
> Given how much the current documentation emphasizes that the order of
> entries doesn’t matter, this is IMHO confusing for new users.
Can you please point to where the documentation states that ordering
does not matter? Obviously, order matters in a system designed to track
the changes of quantities (the balance of accounts) over time. What the
documentation states is that the order in which the entries appear in
the ledger does not matter, unless it is required to break ordering ties
of events registered on the same date. This is precisely documented.
> I do believe the documentation would be improved by describing
> (somewhere) those cases where intra-day ordering *does* matter, and
> referencing that caveat in the places where ordering-invariance is claimed.
Ordering of transactions registered on the same day has nothing to do
with the problem discussed in this thread.
However, if you have ideas on how the documentation can be improved,
feel free to send patches. Help is always welcome.
Cheers,
Dan