The existing bank rule gets completely ignored, why? Not a particularly efficient way of “handling exceptions.” (The entire rule ends up being ignored & all fields have to be manually re-entered after selecting the edit button.)
Typically, most of the bank rule being applied is correct. It’s usually only one (maybe two) fields that need to be changed/updated for that one “exception.”
Note: This happens EVEN if you only want to change a date field. (The existing bank rule still applies to other/future downloaded bank transactions & does not need updating.)
While downloading/importing a batch of bank transactions for records WITH existing bank rules (ie. credit card transactions):
During review & prior to accepting/saving a specific transaction (which would apply the rule): Sometimes a simple change to ONLY one (or two) field(s) is needed. (The rest of the pending bank rule still applies.)
Example: The imported bank transaction rule is MOSTLY correct BUT the expense account (or possibly a DATE field for bank reconciliation purposes) needs changing/updated. Meanwhile, ALL other data (applied by the bank rule) is correct…
In order to make this change (and not accept the complete bank rule & edit the transaction at a later date/after it is accepted): You have to select the edit button. So attempting to make a change to only one field results in completely removing the entire bank rule from that particular transaction. (When only one or two fields needed to be changed NOW everything has to be re-selected/entered.)
Note: Next time I’m importing a bank transaction I can/will grab a screen capture if necessary.
Your issue is that whenever a manual change occurs to an uncategorized bank transaction, the transaction is considered categorized which stops the automated workflow – at least as far as that particular transaction goes.
Indeed, this is an issue, however, I am not yet sure if that is something that could be solved by Find & recode feature. See this guide for more details.
Also, you can always edit the bank statement before importing – if you’re using plain .csv, that is.
I agree adding this functionality would be a useful enhancement.
It would enable bank rules which include all the structure of a transaction but need a small amount of customisation each time. Such as rounding correction or other variable sub component
Ideally, AFTER selecting “Edit” (to modify an “exception” to the rule pending): The edit screen should retain (& display) the “pending” bank rule info in the record’s fields. (which can then be overridden)
Also: On this edit screen, provide BOTH a “Save” button (apply “override” ONLY to this record) AND ALSO (possibly) an “Update Rule” button which would BOTH save the changes to this record & update the existing bank rule. (for all the other records)
Note: This could essentially provide a way to create bank rules “on-the-fly” (in the event there was not already an existing bank rule.)
There are planned improvements to make Find & record a more powerful tool, so while I still think that your request is valid, it’s still possible that the solution may exist.
The way I imagine leveraging find and record is to run the rules without manual intervention like a broad paint brush and then use Find & recode to make the finishing touches much like painting a picture.
Having said that, I still can be wrong and Find & recode may not be the right tool for the job.
Either way, I’m glad that you’re open to suggestions and I think I’m going to place this in ideas for now until @lubos sees whether this fits in the overall scheme of things
@WLS I don’t understand the issue. Can you demonstrate using screenshot what is happening and what you are expecting to happen?
Actually the transaction will be considered categorized only if it has Item or Account selected. Any other change to transaction will have no effect on it’s categorized/uncategorized status.
When categorizing transactions using bank rules, you can either categorize (edit) the transaction manually or categorize in bulk using bank rules.
I’m not sure how to improve this. But I’ll wait to see some screenshots from @WLS. Perhaps I’m missing something important here.
Will grab screen capture.
BUT the problem is: As soon as you select edit (while reviewing imported transactions), all the info (from the rule) disappears on the edit screen for that particular record.
The edit screen should retain & display the info from the rule. (the info that was assigned during import that was assigned to each field by bank the rule) That way, you wouldn’t have to “start from scratch” and reselect the supplier, account info etc. (Make ONLY the changes, instead of starting with an empty record because MOST of the info provided via the rule was correct.)
“The bank rule had already categorized most of the fields correctly.” (It’s usually only the expense account that needs to be overridden.)
Here’s an example:
Import a month of records for a credit card with a bank rule for “Amazon Global.” (supplier)
The rule (by default) assigns the supplier as “AMAZON-GLOBAL” and the expense account to “office supplies”
This is correct for MOST of the transactions but SEVERAL of the transactions from Amazon Global are for “building maintenance.”
You still need/want to assign the same supplier “AMAZON-GLOBAL” to these transactions BUT you need to EDIT & change the expense account FROM “office supplies” TO “building maintenance” for a few of the transactions you’re importing. ~ These are “exceptions to the rule.” (a bank rule which was mostly correct)
BUT when you select edit to modify the transaction to make this one change (during import): You lose all the info (including the supplier name “AMAZON-GLOBAL”) that would have been correctly applied to the transaction by the bank rule. (just because you selected the edit button to change ONE field)
Note: Same thing happens if you need to edit the transaction (while importing) to simply change it’s transaction date or the cleared date to a future date for bank reconciliation purposes etc. (This diminishes the usefulness of creating/assigning & using bank rules!)
Thank you - Going to explore “Find & recode.” (Even though it’s likely not an optimal solution for this, it’s a feature I’ve never used before.)
We’re 99% “download bank transaction based.” (One of Manager.IO’s strongpoints!) Consequently, we’re spending a majority of time in the “Bank & Cash Accounts” screens/sub-screens.
The hardest errors to catch are when a bank rule is 100% correct but “cleared dates” need to be changed. (As a result, I’ve missed some errors which don’t get caught when they should.) Have to keep a notepad & pencil handy.
For the time being (for “rule exceptions”): I’ll likely resort to selecting EDIT and then saving a blank record in the suspense accounts when these “rule exceptions” are encountered… This leaves the transaction “easy to find & fix” at a later point. ~ Although I believe the bank data (for reference) will get lost that way. (notepad & pencil)
The issue I have with this is that Edit button anywhere in the program shows how the record is currently saved in the database. It doesn’t autofill anything extra.
So from this point of view, payment and receipt categorization screen is consistent with the rest of the program. You click Edit button - you get exactly what is saved in the database at the moment.
I’m not sure how I feel about breaking this consistency. There must be another way to solve this issue.
Hi @lubos & @Patch - That could work! (adding a button with a different label such as “Autofill & Edit”)
I was caught up in trying to explain the scenario/issue.
I had just finished all the books up until Mid Feb. here so nothing to download for screen captures etc.
(And fixing the dates/clearing dates of EOY transactions I had missed setting correctly. ~ Directly related to this issue.)
@lubos - Maybe a “Manage Exception” button placed next to “New Receipt/Payment” rule button? (So that one particular transaction could be processed separately?)
@lubos - Any thoughts on methods to preserve rule info when making these “rule exception edits?”
“Rule exceptions” & date changes (for reconciliation purposes) where MOST of the existing bank rule info still applies (during bank data import) are far more frequent/common than one might expect.
Worth noting that it’s a problem for ALL users who rely on bank feeds) when dealing with end of period bank DATE reconciliations. (Accrual transaction dates are based on bank clearing dates/not issue dates when transactions are downloaded/accepted via rules.)
Thinking maybe it could make sense to add a “Flag this Transaction” while reviewing the applied rules. (So that AFTER batch processing is complete (with the default rules) it’s easy to filter/find these transactions to account for the exceptions?
(And possibly expose/display an editable memo field during the review process! - To help with classification exceptions/corrections afterwards?)
@lubos@Patch : The above suggestion/functionality addresses the issue without violating existing record editing/adding new record consistency. (I still think that adding an “Exception” option (on the review downloaded transactions screen) that maintains the bank rule data on the edit screen is the best soliton.)
Please do not brake it. I already have to come to grips with allpowing bank in journal entries and still think that you unnecessily gave into some pressure while sacrificing Manager’s strenth for not allowing that.
Hi @lubos - Wouldn’t have to break consistency with the 2 options I had suggested. (Add a flag & memo field OR preferably an “Exception” button to the review screen.)
The “Exception” button would then copy/place all the rule data into the edit screen for further editing.
Alternately, the flag & memo option would make it easy to batch accept and LATER find these exceptions for correction.)
The “Exception” button seems much easier from a coding perspective.
