Thanks for your question. So, in your example screenshot, you would expect the line with (£7,181) to read:
(£7,181) | - | ⬇(£7,181)
In Joiin, as you've pointed out, we distinguish between an account with a budget figure set to zero vs an account with no budget figure set at all. There may be a valid case where the budget figure is set to zero - but this is different to where no budget is set at all, i.e. there are no required limits for a particular account. So it may not be the right thing to assume accounts with no budgets have a budget figure of zero.
Could you explain a bit more about the issues you are experiencing with it working like this please? And also are you using Joiin budgets or budgets from Xero or QuickBooks?
in answer to your first point, yes that is what i would expect to see
in response to your second point, i am not sure that i agree, ultimately if there is a revenue or a cost against a line that has no budget or zero budget you should see a variance. I dont understand they argument that this could ever not be the case
finally, we are using Xero, i found an annoying work around that i can put £1 in the budget to help me get a variance but that makes it worse in many ways becuase then i see all the account codes that are not being used show up with strange budgte figures of £1x however many months i am looking at.
I actually first tried £0.01 but this didnt work and would have given me the same issue anyway
Ultimately i think Joiin just needs the code in the variance to treat blank as zero.
As a reminder when there is budget but no spend it gives the correct variance, so it really feels as though its just needs to work the same way when they other way round
Hopefully everything ive said makes sense, thank you for your response
Thanks for your response. That makes sense. We've added this info into a development item and will keep you posted on progress.
I agree with Ben here regarding seeing a negative variance should there be costs in a line that has no budget, do you have an ETA for when this might be visible?
Feels like a quick fix to me... it really shouldn't take long to fix and its such a poor/basic error.
I'm surprised that something so, with respect, embarrassing hasn't been sorted asap.
Hi Ben, Hi SJ,
Thanks for your posts on the forum, as ever they are very much appreciated. I have emailed you both personally as well.
We have been working on a fix for this for a few weeks, it has been going through rigorous testing to ensure that it is ready to be released for all users as it will affect all reports in Joiin. We have also worked closely with other users to ensure it will meet all Joiin user's needs, including those that used the reports in their current form.
The update is now ready and is due to be released next week. However we can turn it on earlier for either of you or anyone else who views this forum, please just let us know that you would like this by emailing email@example.com
Thanks for your patience with this.
Thanks Ben, that is now live on your account.
I will update this thread when the update is live for all users.
hi harry i replied to your email but just in case this reached you quicker, its not working please switch me off until fixed and tested
Thanks Ben, we have turned this off for you.
I will keep you posted via email.
in the instance where there are actuals on a code where there is no budget, Joiin does not show a variance. When of course there should be one shown.
This causes unnecessary issues and questions we looking at variances. this could be fixed by Joiin recognising the figure as zero rather than blank.
Funnily enough, this is how it works when there is 0 actuals against a budget, which gives the correct variance.
Can this please be fixed?