github-starred/actual
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git synced 2026-05-06 20:15:33 -05:00
Code Issues 1.5k Packages Projects Releases 55 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #1947] [Feature] Create Payee Rules "begins with" or "contains" conditions. #26543

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-18 02:47:05 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 5 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-18 02:47:05 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @apilbeam101 on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/issues/1947

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?

A number of organisations that have regular payments (in and out of accounts) use a slightly different payee reference each time the transaction occurs. Usually with a one or two digit change each time denoting either the month of the transaction or month of the subscription. For example, the format of " ".

This makes it difficult to set up automated rules for some types of regular payments since it is not possible to match on Payee.

For example, regular salary paid from ACME Inc between January and March would see the payee as:
ACME Inc. 12345 01
ACME Inc. 12345 02
ACME Inc. 12345 02

Screenshots as an example:
image
image

Describe your ideal solution to this problem

In the Rule Creation window, provide additional match criteria for payee to include filters for "begins with" or "contains" which would allow future transactions to be automatically mapped to the correct category.

image

Teaching and learning

Users, when creating rules would see additional items in the drop-down.

If feasible, it could be possible to "suggest" rules in the UI where payees are almost identical.

For me, and many others, worked examples always provide the best results when it comes to documentation and screenshots always help (although can be confusing if there are UI changes).

Originally created by @apilbeam101 on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/issues/1947 ### 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? A number of organisations that have regular payments (in and out of accounts) use a slightly different payee reference each time the transaction occurs. Usually with a one or two digit change each time denoting either the month of the transaction or month of the subscription. For example, the format of "<company-name> <account-reference> <month-MM>". This makes it difficult to set up automated rules for some types of regular payments since it is not possible to match on Payee. For example, regular salary paid from ACME Inc between January and March would see the payee as: ACME Inc. 12345 01 ACME Inc. 12345 02 ACME Inc. 12345 02 Screenshots as an example: ![image](https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/assets/110603139/97deac23-b4cc-4472-b0ee-6cc0efd771c0) ![image](https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/assets/110603139/f56b0bc6-768e-445a-a3ef-1cffffa8c661) ### Describe your ideal solution to this problem In the Rule Creation window, provide additional match criteria for payee to include filters for "begins with" or "contains" which would allow future transactions to be automatically mapped to the correct category. ![image](https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/assets/110603139/294037bc-dfca-42d7-a318-a8384dae8222) ### Teaching and learning Users, when creating rules would see additional items in the drop-down. If feasible, it could be possible to "suggest" rules in the UI where payees are almost identical. For me, and many others, worked examples always provide the best results when it comes to documentation and screenshots always help (although can be confusing if there are UI changes).
GiteaMirror added the feature label 2026-04-18 02:47:05 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-18 02:47:07 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023):

✨ 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 👍!

<!-- gh-comment-id:1820724646 --> @github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023): :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 2026-04-18 02:47:08 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kymckay commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023):

I believe your suggested workflow is already supported:

  • Add contains rule on "imported payee" to map to a common Payee
  • Add rule on Payee to map to category

Could perform as a single rule if desired. The key thing being you want to make the condition on imported payee, not payee.

I don't think having "contains" logic for Payee makes much sense since the Payee represents an entity (not a string) in Actual's model. Which is why you want the "imported payee" which is just a string and supports contains logic.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1821261992 --> @kymckay commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023): I believe your suggested workflow is already supported: - Add contains rule on "imported payee" to map to a common Payee - Add rule on Payee to map to category Could perform as a single rule if desired. The key thing being you want to make the condition on imported payee, not payee. I don't think having "contains" logic for Payee makes much sense since the Payee represents an entity (not a string) in Actual's model. Which is why you want the "imported payee" which is just a string and supports contains logic.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-18 02:47:08 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@apilbeam101 commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023):

You are absolutely correct.

I hadn't seen the distinction between "payee" and "imported payee" on the rule creation page. Not sure how I missed that one.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1821288496 --> @apilbeam101 commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023): You are absolutely correct. I hadn't seen the distinction between "payee" and "imported payee" on the rule creation page. Not sure how I missed that one.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-18 02:47:09 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023):

@apilbeam101 Ill close this as a feature request if you are happy with the imported_payee method

<!-- gh-comment-id:1821291903 --> @youngcw commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023): @apilbeam101 Ill close this as a feature request if you are happy with the imported_payee method
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-18 02:47:09 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@apilbeam101 commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023):

@youngcw yes, please close the request

<!-- gh-comment-id:1821295446 --> @apilbeam101 commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023): @youngcw yes, please close the request
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#26543
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?