Budget Report - unbudgeted includes transactions for subcats where main cat has a budget

[Lindsay Lorden]

A better explanation than the title .. I hope!

When reviewing items against budgets, if you have a category with a budget but the subcategories don't, the category is reported correctedly ie includes all the sub-cat transactions $s.

But the bottom line displayed [titled "(unbudgeted)"] also contains all the sub-cat transaction lines. This makes looking thru these transactions messy.

For transfers between accounts, I use a category/sub-cat of "Journal:Fund Transfer" and have put a "Force monitoring" budget on "Journal" of 0.0. But the sub-cat transactions still show in "(unbudgeted)".

Suggested solution:
------------------
Can the categories with a budget (whether sub-cats have one as well or not) show all it's sub-cats & their $s.

This would make it easier to see where the category budget spends occurred within it's own sub-cats, and would remove the surplus 'budgeted' transactions from the bottom "(unbudgeted)" results.

Thanks.

----------------------------
Windows 10/11
HomeBank 5.8-fix1
Running against GTK+ 3.24.33

[Maxime DOYEN (mdoyen)]

the goal of this new line as asked in https://bugs.launchpad.net/homebank/+bug/2023696
is to show an anomaly, then use the detail txn list to review what's wrong.

As category and subcat can have budget independently, when a subcat has no budget, it is as expected in there as it can be an anomaly.

if you suggest to always display all cat/subcat with or without budget: this would lead to a lot of line with 0 (and nothing related to budget), so not a fan, even if this can already be achieve with force monitoring.

+ it seems more and more this capability to set a budget to a cat that have subcat IS a problem.
for example similar situation there #2036404 that suggest to only affect budget to subcat.
this is the way or working of some other program, maybe I should review and consider this.

[Lindsay Lorden (ludwigwn)]

I'm only suggesting to show the cat/subcat in two scenarios -

1. those subcats that have a budget (or 'force monitoring').

2. if a cat has a budget then that budget, to me, logically applies across all subcats below as is shown by the total the report produces (because it can't be working on the total of transactions charged to the cat with *no* subcat used, there are none in that condition) - hence the lines for these subcats should be shown.
A use case round this is you might budget $3,000 for a vacation but in the end like to know the breakdown - how much got spent on accommodation, how much on travel etc.
Currently you'd know how the cat ("Vacation") overall went according to budget, but not be able to see the $s in each subcat. You'd have to go back to a different report.

Cats with no budget, and whose subcats also have no budget, would remain in the bottom "(unbudgeted)" line as they do now.

I removed the 'force monitoring' on the Journal cat, and placed it on the subcats to eliminate those entries. Sadly, they still show in the "(unbudgeted)" line's details. ie even though the subcat $s total are zero. It must be checking that every [split-]transaction is non-zero - each -ve and the counter +ve ones which come from the one transaction's split transaction entries. Seems something amiss here in the report.
Seems I can't use Budget setting as a double check I have the "zero $s" cat/subcats accurately coded.