Allow existing data in lookup in payee or payer field to be delete

Currently, I would want able to delete data in lookup history either by description, payee or payer depending, for all the fields that is relevant, example, bank transactions.

Sometimes I keyed in partial names or nicknames in payee or payer. after I known the real name, I like to delete it the old data in autolookup so, if there is other similar names, it will show the shorter list of lookup instead unnecessary names that will not be use.

The autocomplete suggestions are based on things you have entered, not defined customers, final descriptions, etc.

correct, the things I have entered I want it able to delete it one by one. whenever i type partial where autocomplete shows possible what I have entered previously, I want it able to delete those particularly ā€˜junkā€™ specific line texts that just made the list longer.

You can by editing the transaction that had the ā€˜junkā€™ text: for example

Create a new transaction for a payer whose name is not yet known by using ā€œUnknownā€
On entering ā€œuā€ the autocomplete suggestions are displayed.

0000000%20Bug%201

On creating the transaction the ā€œUnknownā€ name becomes part of the autocomplete suggestions.

0000000%20Bug%201a

Once the real name is known ā€œUnicornā€, edit the transaction and replace ā€œUnknownā€ with ā€œUnicornā€.
Now the junk ā€œUnknownā€ is deleted from the autocomplete suggestions and replaced with ā€œUnicornā€.

0000000%20Bug%202

Therefore I suggest that if junk text is appearing in your autocomplete, then that is because they are still being used in transactions, edit those transactions to clean up the autocomplete suggestions.

I did not mention this in my earlier response, but depending on which field is involved, you may be able to find the ā€œjunkā€ entries you made by simply searching the tab listings. Of course, not all fields necessarily show in the lists.

didnā€™t know the autocomplete still rely on created transaction. so it still editable. Thanks @Brucanna and @Tut

Here we go again, one providing an inane pseudo response so as to give themselves a ā€œself justificationā€ for not adequately answering the topic with their initial response.

1 Like