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]: Field mapping based on single sample transaction hides available DATE fields #2746

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-28 20:26:33 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 2 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:26:33 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @horvathgergo on GitHub (Dec 26, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @MatissJanis, @Copilot on GitHub.

Verified issue does not already exist?

  • I have searched and found no existing issue

What happened?

I realized that bank sync field mapping derives available date fields from a single sample transaction, hiding valid fields (e.g. valueDate)

When configuring Bank Sync Settings → Field mapping, the list of available date fields (e.g. bookingDate, valueDate, postedDate) is derived from a single sample transaction only.

This causes valid fields to be missing from the UI if that particular transaction does not contain them, even though other transactions for the same account do.

How can we reproduce the issue?

In EditSyncAccount.tsx, field availability is determined by inspecting one transaction object (line 115):

export const getFields = (
  transaction: Record<string, unknown>,
): MappableFieldWithExample[] =>

Observed behavior:

Account A:

  • Sample transaction contains valueDate
  • UI shows both bookingDate and valueDate

Account B:

  • Sample transaction is a card / pending transaction
  • Only bookingDate is present
  • valueDate is not offered in field mapping

This happens even if other transactions on Account B do contain valueDate.

I think field mapping should reflect all fields that may appear in any transaction for the account, not only those present in a single example transaction.

Where are you hosting Actual?

Docker

What browsers are you seeing the problem on?

Safari

Operating System

Mac OSX

Originally created by @horvathgergo on GitHub (Dec 26, 2025). Originally assigned to: @MatissJanis, @Copilot on GitHub. ### Verified issue does not already exist? - [x] I have searched and found no existing issue ### What happened? I realized that bank sync field mapping derives available date fields from a single sample transaction, hiding valid fields (e.g. valueDate) When configuring Bank Sync Settings → Field mapping, the list of available date fields (e.g. bookingDate, valueDate, postedDate) is derived from a single sample transaction only. This causes valid fields to be missing from the UI if that particular transaction does not contain them, even though other transactions for the same account do. ### How can we reproduce the issue? In EditSyncAccount.tsx, field availability is determined by inspecting one transaction object (line 115): ``` export const getFields = ( transaction: Record<string, unknown>, ): MappableFieldWithExample[] => ``` Observed behavior: **Account A:** - Sample transaction contains valueDate - UI shows both bookingDate and valueDate **Account B:** - Sample transaction is a card / pending transaction - Only bookingDate is present - valueDate is not offered in field mapping This happens even if other transactions on Account B do contain valueDate. I think field mapping should reflect all fields that may appear in any transaction for the account, not only those present in a single example transaction. ### Where are you hosting Actual? Docker ### What browsers are you seeing the problem on? Safari ### Operating System Mac OSX
GiteaMirror added the bank syncneeds infobug labels 2026-02-28 20:26:33 -06:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:26:34 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2025):

👋 This should do the trick: https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/pull/6498

Would appreciate if you could use the netlify demo link in that PR to double check if it resolved the problem you were experiencing.

@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2025): 👋 This should do the trick: https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/pull/6498 Would appreciate if you could use the netlify demo link in that PR to double check if it resolved the problem you were experiencing.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:26:35 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 15, 2026):

This issue has been automatically closed because there have been no comments for 7 days after the "needs info" label was added. If you still need help, please feel free to reopen the issue with the requested information.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 15, 2026): This issue has been automatically closed because there have been no comments for 7 days after the "needs info" label was added. If you still need help, please feel free to reopen the issue with the requested information.
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 bank sync bug needs info
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#2746
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?