github-starred/actual
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git synced 2026-03-09 19:52:56 -05:00
Code Issues 250 Packages Projects Releases 53 Wiki Activity

[Bug]: Splitting a transaction that is a transfer to another account off budget does not match up #2455

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-02-28 20:14:15 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 8 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:15 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jonmchan on GitHub (Sep 7, 2025).

Verified issue does not already exist?

  • I have searched and found no existing issue

What happened?

I split a transaction that is a transfer to an off budget account.

Image

In the off budget account, it does not allow you to link to the transfer, but ends up adding 2 transactions.

Image

These 2 transactions then cannot be marked as transfer, so there is the $3000 transaction and the split transactions showing up separately causing an additional $3000 to show up in the off budget ledger.

How can we reproduce the issue?

I would expect that the split would exist on both accounts and not show up as 2 new transactions that is not markable as transfers.

Where are you hosting Actual?

Docker

What browsers are you seeing the problem on?

Chrome

Operating System

Linux

Originally created by @jonmchan on GitHub (Sep 7, 2025). ### Verified issue does not already exist? - [x] I have searched and found no existing issue ### What happened? I split a transaction that is a transfer to an off budget account. <img width="349" height="101" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c30682b2-c813-44eb-82b5-5c6706207e9b" /> In the off budget account, it does not allow you to link to the transfer, but ends up adding 2 transactions. <img width="803" height="99" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/01e16a73-cf91-4588-bc91-fc36c9faeb18" /> These 2 transactions then cannot be marked as transfer, so there is the $3000 transaction and the split transactions showing up separately causing an additional $3000 to show up in the off budget ledger. ### How can we reproduce the issue? I would expect that the split would exist on both accounts and not show up as 2 new transactions that is not markable as transfers. ### Where are you hosting Actual? Docker ### What browsers are you seeing the problem on? Chrome ### Operating System Linux
GiteaMirror added the bug label 2026-02-28 20:14:15 -06:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:15 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 8, 2025):

What process are you using to get to this state?

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 8, 2025): What process are you using to get to this state?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:16 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jonmchan commented on GitHub (Sep 10, 2025):

I am using simplefin bridge to sync with my bank accounts.

Bank account A - Sending account and on budget
Bank Account B - Receiving account and off budget

It would seem that:

  1. First sync, only Bank Account A saw the transactions.
  2. I split the transaction on Bank Account A. In Bank Account B, these now show up as 2 different transactions instead of the split.
  3. Bank Account B, the transfer posted, but now I can't mark as a transfer since it was split into 2 transactions instead of 1 single transaction with a split.
@jonmchan commented on GitHub (Sep 10, 2025): I am using simplefin bridge to sync with my bank accounts. Bank account A - Sending account and on budget Bank Account B - Receiving account and off budget It would seem that: 1. First sync, only Bank Account A saw the transactions. 2. I split the transaction on Bank Account A. In Bank Account B, these now show up as 2 different transactions instead of the split. 3. Bank Account B, the transfer posted, but now I can't mark as a transfer since it was split into 2 transactions instead of 1 single transaction with a split.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:16 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025):

Can you elaborate on what your use case is? Why do you want the transaction to be a split, but then both splits go to the same place? Is it just to divide up the categories?

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025): Can you elaborate on what your use case is? Why do you want the transaction to be a split, but then both splits go to the same place? Is it just to divide up the categories?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:16 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025):

So you can fix the account B side by 1) selecting the two transfers and saying "make split" then 2) merge the unmatched, imported transaction to the split.

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025): So you can fix the account B side by 1) selecting the two transfers and saying "make split" then 2) merge the unmatched, imported transaction to the split.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:16 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jonmchan commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025):

@youngcw I'll try that next time, however, it does seem a painful process to have to put the split in on both sides.

If this is the solution though, we can close this bug.

@jonmchan commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025): @youngcw I'll try that next time, however, it does seem a painful process to have to put the split in on both sides. If this is the solution though, we can close this bug.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:16 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025):

It would be nice to have that happen automatically, but I don't know how that would be done in the code where each of the split lines are treated as separate transactions on the backend. Ill leave this open for now

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025): It would be nice to have that happen automatically, but I don't know how that would be done in the code where each of the split lines are treated as separate transactions on the backend. Ill leave this open for now
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:17 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jonmchan commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025):

Does it become a feature instead of a bug then? :) It sounds like actually a new feature disguised as a bug.

@jonmchan commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025): Does it become a feature instead of a bug then? :) It sounds like actually a new feature disguised as a bug.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:14:17 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025):

It could be a feature request. If you want to change this to be a feature request that would be fine.

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 15, 2025): It could be a feature request. If you want to change this to be a feature request that would be fine.
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 bug
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#2455
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?