mirror of
https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git
synced 2026-07-10 22:33:05 -05:00
[Feature] Create Payee Rules "begins with" or "contains" conditions. #750
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/actual#750
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
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?
Originally created by @apilbeam101 on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023).
Verified feature request does not already exist?
💻
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:
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.
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).
@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 👍!
@kymckay commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023):
I believe your suggested workflow is already supported:
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.
@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.
@youngcw commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023):
@apilbeam101 Ill close this as a feature request if you are happy with the imported_payee method
@apilbeam101 commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2023):
@youngcw yes, please close the request