You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Bug description
I am running Firefly III version 5.5.8, and my problem is:
When running a api request to create a transaction (api/v1/transactions), for the value of destination_number, it looks like it now sets that as the name of the destination account.
Steps to reproduce
1.) Do a API request against api/v1/transactions specifying a destination_number that matches an account in firefly
2.) Look in the transaction, and you will see the destination account have a name that reflects the number in step 1
Extra info
I have a iOS shortcut that creates this transaction. In the previous version, it set it as the correct account ID. Using the same shortcut, it now creates a new expense account with the name being the number
I was going to try to reproduce this using the demo site, but couldn't see how to use the swagger UI with the demo site. NOt sure if it is possible. Sorry!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Bug description
I am running Firefly III version 5.5.8, and my problem is:
When running a api request to create a transaction (api/v1/transactions), for the value of destination_number, it looks like it now sets that as the name of the destination account.
Steps to reproduce
1.) Do a API request against api/v1/transactions specifying a destination_number that matches an account in firefly
2.) Look in the transaction, and you will see the destination account have a name that reflects the number in step 1
Extra info
I have a iOS shortcut that creates this transaction. In the previous version, it set it as the correct account ID. Using the same shortcut, it now creates a new expense account with the name being the number
I was going to try to reproduce this using the demo site, but couldn't see how to use the swagger UI with the demo site. NOt sure if it is possible. Sorry!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: