Consider the following transaction:
2010-06-22 Sample
Assets:Brokerage 10 AAPL {$30}
Assets:Brokerage
Previously, this would have been equivalent to:
2010-06-22 Sample
Assets:Brokerage 10 AAPL @ $30
Assets:Brokerage
However, this is not always what the user expects to happen. When @ is
not being used, the transaction should reflect a mere transfer of
commodities. This is now how it works, and thus the above transaction
is now equivalent to the following instead:
2010-06-22 Sample
Assets:Brokerage 10 AAPL {$30}
Assets:Brokerage -10 AAPL {$30}
These can occur in many places:
; Within an automated transaction, the assert is evaluated every time
; a posting is matched, with the expression context set to the
; matching posting.
= /Food/
assert account("Expenses:Food").total >= $100
2010-06-12 Sample
Expenses:Food $100
Assets:Checking
; At file scope, the expression is evaluated with "global" scope.
assert account("Expenses:Food").total == $100
; At the top of a transction, the assertion's scope is the
; transaction. After a posting, the scope is that posting. Note
; however that account totals are only adjusted after successful
; parsing of a transaction, which means that all the assertions below
; are true, even though it appears as though the middle posting should
; affect the total immediately (which is not the case).
2010-06-12 Sample 2
assert account("Expenses:Food").total == $100
Expenses:Food $50
assert account("Expenses:Food").total == $100
Assets:Checking
assert account("Expenses:Food").total == $100
For example, consider the following automated transaction:
= /Food/
; Next Date:: date + 10
(Expenses:Tax) 1.00
; Next Date:: date + 20
This will add a metadata field named 'Next Date' to the _matching
posting_, with a value that is 10 days later than that posting. It will
also generate a new posting for that transaction, whose amount is the
same as the matching posting. Further, it will add a 'Next Date'
metadata tag to the _generated posting_ whose value is 20 days later
than the date of the matching posting.
