allow information pane for Transaction to be filtered by accounts

[mierin12]

Closes #2371

Hello, this is a proposition to filter the transactions in the bottom Transactions pane of a security based on the accounts selected. This is the current behavior for the Chart pane and the Trades panes, so I guess we can apply it also for Transaction pane ? And this is also the current behavior of the "uneditable transactions pane" of Performance Securities view.

[buchen]

Hi @mierin12,

thanks for the proposal.

I realize PP is already inconsistent. Take the "PaymentsView". If filtered, the transaction pane uses account#getTransactions to get the filtered transactions. But it uses Security#getTransactions(client) to get unfiltered transactions for the client. So already today there is a mismatch.

The "problem" I have: The user can now edit the "derived" transaction. Say we have a transfer from account A to account B. If the filter only contains account A, then the transfer is converted into a withdrawal (because account B is not part of the set). The withdrawal can now be edited.

The second thing is: some transactions are just copied over to the filtered client, some transactions are edited (the delivery to withdrawal, but also when creating a client before taxes and fees). So at the moment it is really hard to say what are "original" transactions that can be edited and what not.

That is also the reason why - for now - I kept the "uneditable transactions pane" of Performance Securities.

If I see this right, this change would impact following views (the others have no client filter):

• PaymentsView
• TaxonomyView
• HoldingsPieChartView
• StatementOfAssetsView
• PerformanceView

Two questions:

• Mid-term my thinking is to have some transient filed "original transaction" in the Transaction class. This could hold a reference to the original transaction. If given, then the pane would either not allow editing or open the original transaction. And we could add a little icon to indicate to the user that this is a derived transaction. What do you think? Other ideas?

• I am still torn if merging this change make it better (more consistent) or worse (allow editing the virtual transactions and having no indicator). Any thoughts on the trade off?

[buchen]

I close this one. It is included in #5076, but the latter one also fixes the editing dialogs and menus.