With introduction of the combined Receipts & Payments tab in place of Bank Transactions and Cash Transactions, reference numbers were automatically assigned where they were absent. Unfortunately, in some situations the result can be intermixing of two sequential numbering schemes.
For example, if a user was not entering reference numbers for bank transactions, which were optional, all those unnumbered transactions get new numbers, starting at 1. But since cash transactions were recently being auto-numbered, they have reference numbers already, which are retained. So the two sequences are now mixed. In the illustration below, a scheme was being used for cash transaction numbering where each year’s transactions started fresh at YYxxx:
The first two entries shown, both on 03/07/2015, are numbered 25, then 24 (dates are in descending order). The next two, from the auto-numbered scheme described above, disrupt the sequence.
It is also possible, depending on the ranges of numbers involved and when or whether the user entered bank transaction numbers, to end up with duplicate numbers in the combined sequence.
If an automatic sequence is going to be retroactively applied to existing transactions, previous entries should have at least been converted to custom fields. This creates complete mayhem in record systems. There can now be hundreds or thousands of transactions with numbers that make no sense.
Is it possible now, after numbers have been applied, to somehow recover and generate a coherent sequence? Preferably, for the users who had implemented year-based numbering, a multi-step process should be available, where the first transaction in a new year could be given a number manually, then subsequent transactions would auto-number.
Maybe there is a possibility of recovering by waiting until an improved version fixing this bug is released, then restoring a backup from prior to the version that introduced the problem?