Group and ungroup split transactions #2805
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for actualbudget ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
github-actions
bot
changed the title
Bundle Stats — desktop-clientHey there, this message comes from a GitHub action that helps you and reviewers to understand how these changes affect the size of this project's bundle. As this PR is updated, I'll keep you updated on how the bundle size is impacted. Total
Changeset
View detailed bundle breakdownAdded No assets were added Removed No assets were removed Bigger
Smaller No assets were smaller Unchanged
|
Bundle Stats — loot-coreHey there, this message comes from a GitHub action that helps you and reviewers to understand how these changes affect the size of this project's bundle. As this PR is updated, I'll keep you updated on how the bundle size is impacted. Total
Changeset
View detailed bundle breakdownAdded No assets were added Removed No assets were removed Bigger No assets were bigger Smaller
Unchanged No assets were unchanged |
joel-jeremy
changed the title
|
Right now if I want to pull one of the splits out, I have to separate the entire transaction, then join back the other splits together. Is there a way, since individual splits can be selected, to just have it so you can select a subset of the splits and pull those out into separate transactions, leaving the rest together as a split? |
|
Here are some bugs:
|
|
@joel-jeremy Instead of always making a "Split" payee, could it be a bit smarter? If the transactions being grouped are all the same Payee, it should use that. If not, I am not sure of the best fallback case, but perhaps we fall back to either the one that is most common or the newest? I do not have any payee named "Split" and would not like having that, personally. |
|
I am unsure why it renders differently. Here is a real split (from the test data): Here is one I created: Notice the payees of the children are not greyed out like the first one. |
|
@psybers Thank you for testing this out! Pushed some changes. Seems to fix most of the issues, and now it's going to allow pulling out one or more child transactions, not just as a whole. |
|
Here's another edge case: 
It gives the option to unsplit here. |
|
If I join several into a split, it keeps them selected. Is it possible to keep them selected when making them individual? It looks like if I pick a subset of the splits it does that. But if I pick the parent and then unsplit, can you have it select the children that are now individual? |
|
@psybers The code handles that edge-case, it ignores the non-split transactions. |
|
If I pick all but 1 of the splits and then pull them out, I am left with this parent with one child: 
Probably it should just go to a normal, non-split transaction? |
I was thinking it makes more sense to not show the menu option in this edge case. |
|
General UX principles state the menu item should probably always be shown, and just grey out when it isn't available. Similar to the "Make transfer" option. The wording of the menu item could maybe be improved, but I am struggling with some good suggestions.
|
|
Maybe we should consider introducing a special "Split" payee just as we have a special "Transfer" category. I always found it a bit odd having to set a payee on the parent transaction when the child transactions can have differing payees that are unrelated. You didn't really pay for anything with the parent transaction, you already denoted that on it's child transactions. So more likely than not, the parent payee is just duplicating the info on the child transactions. |
Maybe, but this logic doesn't quite follow when there is only one actual transaction and the split is to apportion parts to different categories - it would be annoying and superfluous having to set the same payee repeatedly vs the once you do now. |
To help with that, we can have the "Split" payee render as a button, which opens the payee autocomplete to set all child transactions to the same payee, but parent will still have the "Split" payee. |
|
@joel-jeremy Can you provide a concrete use case of where it makes sense to take two separate transactions, from two different payees, and then join them together as a "split"? I am struggling to envision this case. I can clearly see the other case, where you might want to pull part of a split out (I would use that every week!). An example is if you split a bill with your partner and want to pull their part out to track separately. You could leave it as a split and just categorize it differently but it is nice to see it separate. Then you could delete it. |
|
Any ideas what this would/would not do if you are using a bank sync? If I pull out a split, or join two things together will it suddenly try to sync the original transaction back in? |
joel-jeremy
force-pushed
the
group-ungroup-transactions
branch
from
53d3ef1
to
30aa729
Compare
|
Example of how we could render the parent transaction payee:
When split button is clicked: Updates all the child transaction payees: |
@psybers Personally, I use split transaction for transactions that have fees. I add the fee as a child transaction with a different payee e.g.
|
Haven't done a thorough testing but I believe as long as the |
joel-jeremy
force-pushed
the
group-ungroup-transactions
branch
from
71b0842
to
97b49ad
Compare
joel-jeremy
requested review from
psybers and
MatissJanis
and removed request for
psybers
|
|
||
| return transactions.some(t => t && t.is_child); | ||
| }, [selectedItems]); | ||
| }, [selectedIds, getTransaction]); |
github-actions
bot
added
✨ Merged
|
Hello @joel-jeremy, The issue I am now facing after this change is that about half of my transactions now have Is it possible to integrate the suggestion from @psybers mentioned here? #2805 (comment) I have attached a screenshot to maybe better visualize my problem: Thank you for your work! |
|
Hey there 👋 thank you for your feedback! There is an ongoing PR for that: #3049 |
|
Oh, very awesome! I am sorry I didn't see that one. Thank you! That looks very nice |
|
I am not sure what I'm doing wrong, but it doesn't seem to make any sense as to why I can see or not see this option: |
|
I can't see the options 'Mark as split transaction' nor 'Unspilt transactions'. CORRECTION |
Easily turn multiple transactions into a split transaction or separate a split transaction into multiple individual ones.
Make as split transaction
Unsplit transaction