mirror of
https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git
synced 2026-07-11 11:59:55 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #2426] [Bug]: Budget Goal Templates does not recalculate available funds per priority level when using monthly apply/overwrite template #7904
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/actual#7904
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 @thennekx on GitHub (Mar 6, 2024).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/issues/2426
Verified issue does not already exist?
Is this related to GoCardless, Simplefin or another bank-sync provider?
What happened?
Version used: v24.3.0
Reproduction scenario:
I believe there should be a recalculation of available funds every time a priority level is finished.
Currently this is not the case, causing the resulting amounts to be equal for both "#template-2 2% of available funds" and "#template-3 2% of available funds".
For example:
What error did you receive?
No response
Where are you hosting Actual?
Docker
What browsers are you seeing the problem on?
Firefox
Operating System
Windows 11
@thennekx commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2024):
Could it be that the fix is as simple as moving the line
0e0d960cd4/packages/loot-core/src/server/budget/goaltemplates.ts (L225)inside the loop
0e0d960cd4/packages/loot-core/src/server/budget/goaltemplates.ts (L229)@youngcw commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2024):
It had been decided when that template was implemented to not recalculate the available funds value at each priority level. That way it was more obvious what value would be used since it was a value that the user could actually see, unlike the to budget between priority levels.
@thennekx commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2024):
Thanks for the insight, I guess it cannot be considered a bug then, but rather an inconvenience.
This approach is very logical when using specific income categories, like previous all income, they do not change during runtime.
For the "available funds" keyword, it does not make so much sense to me in combination with priorities, as you know this changes when the budget is being applied using priorities.
If this approach is kept (which i can understand), I wonder if a specific keyword could be added that can achieve this behavior.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Some background on my issue i am having with the current approach:
I have my budget split-up in multiple groups, with descending importance, this is where the priorities come in.
When running the monthly apply budget this will yield a higher budget for less important categories than if i manually apply it per priority (see workaround below).
My lowest priorities are set to only 1 percent, so i cannot go lower to reduce the budget they receive. This results in my budget being eaten from my saving category that uses the remainder without manual intervention. This essentially breaks the monthly apply budget for me.
At the moment there is no way to achieve said behavior, which is what i believe could/should be handled with the priorities.
For anyone facing the same issue, my workaround below:
Run the monthly template apply, then reset the budget of the lower priorities and run it again, and repeat again until all priority levels are filled.
@youngcw commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2024):
Ill close this for now. Feel free to put in a feature request for an update.