github-starred/actual
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git synced 2026-05-06 07:01:45 -05:00
Code Issues 1.5k Packages Projects Releases 54 Wiki Activity

[PR #383] [MERGED] Fix child transaction selection edits also applying to their unselected siblings. #3098

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-28 20:36:19 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 0 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-02-28 20:36:19 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/pull/383
Author: @CharlesEkkel
Created: 11/3/2022
Status: ✅ Merged
Merged: 12/29/2022
Merged by: @MatissJanis

Base: master ← Head: fix-editing-selected-splits

📝 Commits (2)

  • 2005ada feat: ensure only selected transactions are modified
  • 4496e56 chore: use const

📊 Changes

1 file changed (+8 additions, -0 deletions)

View changed files

📝 packages/desktop-client/src/components/accounts/Account.js (+8 -0)

📄 Description

Description

As per issue #371, after selecting one or more of the children of a split transaction and performing a change, any 'EDIT FIELD' operation would also be erroneously applied to the unselected siblings & parent as well.

This was caused by options({ splits: 'grouped' }) retrieving all the children of any selected split transaction. This appears to be the intended behaviour for this option (as far as I can tell), however it is now accounted for in the calling code.

I'm up for more performant suggestions - although I reckon this here is pretty alright, with a set used to minimise performance degredation with larger selections. Perhaps a new splits option for SQL queries might make sense? The only trouble with that is that the parents will still need to be retrieved for some other logic to work.

Changes

  • When processing the list of transactions returned from the query, we now ignore the ones not found in the ids array parameter.

Before & After

Before

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54133784/199712252-95f52fdf-7b81-421a-878d-ad1475943dcc.mp4

After

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54133784/199712315-883802df-1eb8-441a-8c74-89e392af23cd.mp4

🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/pull/383 **Author:** [@CharlesEkkel](https://github.com/CharlesEkkel) **Created:** 11/3/2022 **Status:** ✅ Merged **Merged:** 12/29/2022 **Merged by:** [@MatissJanis](https://github.com/MatissJanis) **Base:** `master` ← **Head:** `fix-editing-selected-splits` --- ### 📝 Commits (2) - [`2005ada`](https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/commit/2005ada76139577f2ba1b43b2e5ba70b6168b522) feat: ensure only selected transactions are modified - [`4496e56`](https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/commit/4496e560d7fd6b8508a7d8910e8817c5e784f6eb) chore: use const ### 📊 Changes **1 file changed** (+8 additions, -0 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `packages/desktop-client/src/components/accounts/Account.js` (+8 -0) </details> ### 📄 Description ## Description As per issue #371, after selecting one or more of the children of a split transaction and performing a change, any 'EDIT FIELD' operation would also be erroneously applied to the unselected siblings & parent as well. This was caused by `options({ splits: 'grouped' })` retrieving *all* the children of any selected split transaction. This appears to be the intended behaviour for this option (as far as I can tell), however it is now accounted for in the calling code. I'm up for more performant suggestions - although I reckon this here is pretty alright, with a set used to minimise performance degredation with larger selections. Perhaps a new splits option for SQL queries might make sense? The only trouble with that is that the parents will still need to be retrieved for some other logic to work. ## Changes - When processing the list of transactions returned from the query, we now ignore the ones not found in the `ids` array parameter. ## Before & After ### Before https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54133784/199712252-95f52fdf-7b81-421a-878d-ad1475943dcc.mp4 ### After https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54133784/199712315-883802df-1eb8-441a-8c74-89e392af23cd.mp4 --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
GiteaMirror added the pull-request label 2026-02-28 20:36:19 -06:00
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 pull-request
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#3098
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?