Start balance on general ledger does not take start date into account

I notice when defining an start date on general ledger account the start balance is not computed correctly. Can be reproduced on demo.tryton.org:

Fiscal year: 2020

Account: Main receivable

Start balance with no start date: 0€

Start balance with start date 1/10/2020: 0€ (should be 1924,45€)

Indeed neither general ledger line the balance with #9791 (closed) works as expected when defining start date.

added accounting + 1 deleted label

I guess from_date and to_date must also be removed from the context when computing for non-closed years.

added 1 deleted label and removed 1 deleted label

assigned to @pokoli

Here is a review348161002 that fixes the issue.

added 1 deleted label and removed 1 deleted label

review348161002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/348161002/#ps361571002

I do not understand the proposed change. For me the problem is not on GL but on Account._cumulate.

cumulate is not related. On the demo database there is no closed fiscalyear.

The problem is that the amounts of the current period are not included on the start balance. Let me put and example.

If you have a move on 09/04/2021 of 100€ you can observe the following behaviour:

Without start_date start balance is zero: Using 10/04/2021 the start balance is zero.

On the second case, the start balance should be 100€ as the move is done before the date filter.

I'm pretty sure there is a problem with _cumulate and also one with period_ids being an empty list instead of None when no period is selected but dates are filled.

review348161002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/348161002/#ps363221004

review348161002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/348161002/#ps334251003

review348161002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/348161002/#ps346041005

review348161002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/348161002/#ps363321002

I also wrote a patch about this issue (but a different one)

@nicoe could you share the difference between both patches?

* Sergi Almacellas Abellana [2021-05-24 08:55 +0200]:
>
>Sergi Almacellas Abellana <sergi@koolpi.com> added the comment:
>
>@nicoe could you share the difference between both patches?

Yes I replied in a hurry yesterday.

My patch considers that you use either periods or dates but not both thus it
does not require to change MoveLine.query_get (basicaly you put the complexity
in query_get I put it in get_account). But it misses your change on _cumulate
(which is not related to the issue but is nice anyway because it resets the
context).

I also changed the tests differently (so that we can test on the same
fiscalyear the period before the move are added, the period where they're added
and afterwards).

For me review351991002 is a better solution because it does not alter Move.query_get which is already too complex. And it will require to also include the context reset of review348161002. But as-is it can not be backported, it should not have a changelog entry and it should work without modification of the scenario (I guess it the modifications are only to test the special case).

assigned to @nicoe and unassigned @pokoli