New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Feedback]: Split in Rules #2379
Comments
@jfdoming I noticed that we can split transactions in rules on all stages (Pre, Default, Post). Does it make sense to just allow a split on |
I think it would make sense to block setting the category in the "before split" part of a split rule. Currently it can be set, but does nothing. Maybe pass that on to the splits if its set there? |
Hmm, so the "Before split" bit was because I wasn't sure what to do if you (1) add some actions to a non-split rule, and then (2) split the rule; and also it was supposed to be a way to apply actions across all splits. If setting the category doesn't work (I'll check and investigate why) that seems like something that should be fixed, but I'm curious if you have other ideas on how this could behave. Thanks for the feedback btw! |
It would be nice if the functionality for creating rules from existing transactions would pull in the splits. |
I have an off-budget account for a loan I have, and when the charge comes in I turn it into a split transaction with the principal part being a transfer to the off-budget account and the interest part going to the original payee. Since the principal vs interest amount is different each month I tried setting the split rule to set both splits to an amount of 0, hoping that it would leave the transaction in the same state as would happen if you did this manually, but having just synced one of these charges I see that an extra split is added with the difference. I guess that's a reasonable default way to handle it, but my preferred way to handle these loan payments in particular would be to not have an extra split created with the extra and for something like the "X uncategorized transactions" notice to be shown for splits where the full balance hasn't been assigned. |
A split I have didn't work this month. One I had on a different budget did work, that one was with a auto posting schedule. |
Sorry, just to confirm, the auto posting one did work and the regular rule-based on didn't? Were you able to get the rule to apply manually? |
Id be happy to have a crack at implementing the api path if you can point me in the right direction |
The auto posting one did work. I cant get this one on my main budget to have the rule apply. Even manually applying the rule wasn't working even though the transaction showed up in the match list |
That sounds odd... What were the criteria/actions, if you don't mind me asking? |
That rule is based on payee and approx amount. Im pretty sure that rule has triggered in the past fine. Ill keep watching to see if it keeps happening |
@Marethyu1 check out https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/pull/2569/files#diff-21c5b30e746cbe9a3777fbd9c245d00284320a22e7a18e6c443c2466d1b97767R1099 for details on how to construct splits. Not sure if you need to expose this directly via the API or provide some logical wrapper! Notes:
|
hey @ByteChild, sorry you ran into this! Can you try with the preview link on this PR and see if it fixes your issue? #2566 |
Hi folks, just added a VRT test in #2604 1. Setting a category in the before split doesn't make sense.Behaviour: If add a split transaction and set the before split category to anything (eg 'food') when I enter the transaction it the category gets set to split instead of the category I set. Example rule: Example Transaction: Potential fix: 2. When manually entering a split transaction you have to set payment amount firstIn order for a split transaction rule to apply when being entered manually you have to set the payment amount first. This is pretty confusing and was discussed here. Definitely agree that this would be great an enhancement If anyone has time to look into it |
Hey! Thanks for the feedback. For 1, the idea was that the actions there apply to all splits. I think a rename from "Before split" to "Apply to all" makes sense; what do you think? (Side note: seems like that logic isn't working! I'll look into it and fix.) For 2, good idea, although not sure how difficult this would be to implement. I'll take a crack at it when I have time. |
Opened a PR here with the changes we discussed to the "Before split" section, feel free to try it out here and let me know what you think! |
Looks like we've not had any new feedback for a while. Any objections if we release this as a first party feature (i.e. remove the feature flag gating)? |
Feedback for the experimental Split in rules feature.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: