github-starred/actual
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git synced 2026-03-10 20:23:07 -05:00
Code Issues 250 Packages Projects Releases 53 Wiki Activity

[Bug]: Illogical payee merging in rules #2881

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-28 20:31:26 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 1 comment
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:31:26 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @mullermn on GitHub (Feb 1, 2026).

Verified issue does not already exist?

  • I have searched and found no existing issue

What happened?

I have searched for this, but it's possible I did not try the right combo of magic words, apologies if this already exists. Also apologies if this is considered an enhancement, but to me this is unintuitive enough that I think it can legitimately be called a bug.

TLDR; Payees have to exist to be used in (some but not all) rules. However, applying rules or manually renaming a payee prompts the user to merge the payee - which then breaks the rule config.

How can we reproduce the issue?

Here's one illustration:

  1. Transactions from a single retailer come through in a variety of names depending on payment instrument etc, so user sets up a 'Payee one of' rule to merge them.
  2. A new variant shows up and user opens the rule to add it to the list.
  3. Actual finds transactions and builds a list in the 'this rule applies to these transactions' window.
  4. User ticks the new variant in the list, clicks 'apply actions'. The payee is renamed as expected.
    However
  5. Actual identifies that the original payee now has no transactions associated with it, and prompts the user to marge the payee. User, assuming that the app is probably encouraging a sensible behaviour, clicks yes.
  6. Actual merges the payees, but in the process removes the payee that was just added to the rule again.
  7. Rule is now 'broken' in that future transactions with the same payee will not be renamed - which is a clear intent of the user if they're creating(/extending) the rule in the first place.

My interpretation of the user's intent is that the transaction should be renamed, but the rule should remain intact so that future transactions that arrive with the same payee are renamed. The smallest-scope fix for this would seem to be to suppress the 'merge these payees' behaviour when triggered from the rule creation window.

Where are you hosting Actual?

Pikapods

What browsers are you seeing the problem on?

Desktop App (Electron)

Operating System

Mac OSX

Originally created by @mullermn on GitHub (Feb 1, 2026). ### Verified issue does not already exist? - [x] I have searched and found no existing issue ### What happened? _I have searched for this, but it's possible I did not try the right combo of magic words, apologies if this already exists. Also apologies if this is considered an enhancement, but to me this is unintuitive enough that I think it can legitimately be called a bug._ TLDR; Payees have to exist to be used in (some but not all) rules. However, applying rules or manually renaming a payee prompts the user to merge the payee - which then breaks the rule config. ### How can we reproduce the issue? Here's one illustration: 1) Transactions from a single retailer come through in a variety of names depending on payment instrument etc, so user sets up a 'Payee one of' rule to merge them. 2) A new variant shows up and user opens the rule to add it to the list. 2) Actual finds transactions and builds a list in the 'this rule applies to these transactions' window. 3) User ticks the new variant in the list, clicks 'apply actions'. The payee is renamed as expected. _However_ 4) Actual identifies that the original payee now has no transactions associated with it, and prompts the user to marge the payee. User, assuming that the app is probably encouraging a sensible behaviour, clicks yes. 5) Actual merges the payees, but in the process removes the payee that was just added to the rule again. 6) Rule is now 'broken' in that future transactions with the same payee will not be renamed - which is a clear intent of the user if they're creating(/extending) the rule in the first place. My interpretation of the user's intent is that the transaction should be renamed, but the rule should remain intact so that future transactions that arrive with the same payee are renamed. The smallest-scope fix for this would seem to be to suppress the 'merge these payees' behaviour when triggered from the rule creation window. ### Where are you hosting Actual? Pikapods ### What browsers are you seeing the problem on? Desktop App (Electron) ### Operating System Mac OSX
GiteaMirror added the bug label 2026-02-28 20:31:26 -06:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:31:27 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2026):

Use imported_payee in your rules, that is the raw string payee that came in with the transaction. You can use more flexible options with that like contains or matches.

@youngcw commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2026): Use imported_payee in your rules, that is the raw string payee that came in with the transaction. You can use more flexible options with that like contains or matches.
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#2881
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?