github-starred/actual
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git synced 2026-03-09 03:32:54 -05:00
Code Issues 250 Packages Projects Releases 53 Wiki Activity

[Feature] Add option to move (not link) split-transactions to scheduler #2163

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-28 20:05:05 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 2 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:05:05 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Mansarde on GitHub (Jun 1, 2025).

Verified feature request does not already exist?

  • I have searched and found no existing issue

💻

  • Would you like to implement this feature?

Pitch: what problem are you trying to solve?

Oftentimes I want a future split-transaction I've entered to not show up (and affect my account balance) until its due date.
So in that situation I'd want to move it into the scheduler.

Unfortunately I can't just link the transaction to a new (one-time) schedule and then delete it, because that would make all the sub-transactions vanish.

So I currently have to re-enter all those details into the schedule's accompanying rule, which is quite more tedious than entering them in the account table.
I'm also entering them for the second time, which feels redundant.

Describe your ideal solution to this problem

In addition to the existing link to schedule, have a move to schedule option.
This would replicate a split-transaction with all its children (incl. their respective amounts, payees, categories and notes) in the accompanying rule, preserving all the details I've already entered before.

Teaching and learning

How do we make it discoverable?

It would be in the same menu as link to schedule


What kind of documentation should we write?

"If you want to not just link a transaction into a schedule, but preserve all of its existing details (like split-transactions, payees, categories, notes, etc.) then use move to schedule instead. This will replicate all the transaction details in the schedule's rule and delete the original transaction.
Once the scheduled transaction is posted, it will contain all the details that the originally entered transaction had."


Are there aspects of the feature that could trip up users?

Veteran users of AB might think that moving would be idential to linking and then deleting the TX, not realizing that it actually preserves all the details of the TX.
But the worst case here is that their original TX's details are preserved, they'd not be losing any data.
And of course, this is assuming that they wouldn't read the documentation for this new feature. :P

Originally created by @Mansarde on GitHub (Jun 1, 2025). ### Verified feature request does not already exist? - [x] I have searched and found no existing issue ### 💻 - [ ] Would you like to implement this feature? ### Pitch: what problem are you trying to solve? Oftentimes I want a future split-transaction I've entered to *not* show up (and affect my account balance) until its due date. So in that situation I'd want to *move* it into the scheduler. Unfortunately I can't just _link_ the transaction to a new (one-time) schedule and then delete it, because that would make all the sub-transactions vanish. So I currently have to re-enter all those details into the schedule's accompanying rule, which is quite more tedious than entering them in the account table. I'm also entering them for the second time, which feels redundant. ### Describe your ideal solution to this problem In addition to the existing `link to schedule`, have a `move to schedule` option. This would replicate a split-transaction with all its children (incl. their respective amounts, payees, categories and notes) in the accompanying rule, preserving all the details I've already entered before. ### Teaching and learning > How do we make it discoverable? It would be in the same menu as `link to schedule` <br> > What kind of documentation should we write? "If you want to not just link a transaction into a schedule, but preserve all of its existing details (like split-transactions, payees, categories, notes, etc.) then use `move to schedule` instead. This will replicate all the transaction details in the schedule's rule and delete the original transaction. Once the scheduled transaction is posted, it will contain all the details that the originally entered transaction had." <br> > Are there aspects of the feature that could trip up users? Veteran users of AB might think that moving would be idential to linking and then deleting the TX, not realizing that it actually preserves all the details of the TX. But the worst case here is that their original TX's details are preserved, they'd not be losing any data. And of course, this is assuming that they wouldn't read the documentation for this new feature. :P
GiteaMirror added the feature label 2026-02-28 20:05:05 -06:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:05:06 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2025):

✨ Thanks for sharing your idea! ✨

This repository uses lodash style issue management for enhancements. That means enhancement issues are automatically closed. This doesn’t mean we don’t accept feature requests, though! We will consider implementing ones that receive many upvotes, and we welcome contributions for any feature requests marked as needing votes (just post a comment first so we can help you make a successful contribution).

The enhancement backlog can be found here: https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/issues?q=label%3A%22needs+votes%22+sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc+

Don’t forget to upvote the top comment with 👍!

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2025): :sparkles: Thanks for sharing your idea! :sparkles: This repository uses lodash style issue management for enhancements. That means enhancement issues are automatically closed. This doesn’t mean we don’t accept feature requests, though! We will consider implementing ones that receive many upvotes, and we welcome contributions for any feature requests marked as needing votes (just post a comment first so we can help you make a successful contribution). The enhancement backlog can be found here: https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/issues?q=label%3A%22needs+votes%22+sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc+ Don’t forget to upvote the top comment with 👍! <!-- feature-auto-close-comment -->
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:05:07 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2025):

🎉 This feature has been implemented in #6065 and will be released in the next version. Thanks for sharing your idea! 🎉

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2025): :tada: This feature has been implemented in #6065 and will be released in the next version. Thanks for sharing your idea! :tada: <!-- feature-implemented-comment -->
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
AI generated
API
bank sync
budgeting
bug
can’t replicate
dependencies
docker
documentation
electron
experimental feature
feature
feedback
goal templates
good first issue
help wanted
importers
maintenance
needs info
needs testing
needs triage
needs votes
openid
payees
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 regression
reports
responsive
rules
schedules
server
✨ merged
split transactions
tech debt
theme
transaction import
transaction reconciliation
transactions
translations
upstream
user interface
✅ approved
wontfix
No Label feature
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/actual#2163
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?