Renaming of cash transaction report title

hello! this is just to suggest, can we rename back the cash transaction title to cash receipt and cash payment, not much big deal, but it is easier to identify the printed document wether it is a receipt or a disbursement.

im working on version 18.8.29

1 Like

@lubos, unlike what @roger3820 said, I think this is a big deal. As of version 18.8.30, there is no way at all to tell whether bank and cash transactions are payments or receipts. No title, no plus or minus sign, nothing. This is so serious, I’m going to reclassify this topic to bugs, even though I see you already put it into ideas.

Further, I have to question the entire change from Spend/Receive money to Deposit/Withdrawal. What is the purpose of that? When I review historical transactions, the new model is not intuitive. For example, a cash payment to a merchant is now a cash transaction with a “withdrawal” annotation you can only see on the edit screen. I didn’t “withdraw” money, I spent it. Yes, I can follow the logic, but what was wrong with that transaction being a cash payment? Why add the extra selection step for transaction type? Spend and Receive money have always been obvious and intuitive.

1 Like

I loved the Spend Money / Receive Money - it was clear what you were doing

1 Like

There are number of problems I’m trying to resolve with Bank Transactions and Cash Transactions tabs all at once.

First one is technical. To move forward, I cannot have two different forms within single tab. So Spend money and Receive money has been merged into single Bank Transaction form where you can switch between Receive money and Spend money. There is a Type field which allows to switch between Deposit and Withdrawal.

Then there is the terminology so let me address that in detail…

I think Receipts and Payments side by side are unfortunate terms. For example, Cash Receipt in Manager is money you received into cash account but intuitively, Cash Receipts are known as cash payments to vendors who have issued receipts.

So I do want to get rid of Receipts term altogether due to ambiguity. I’ve noticed some accounting packages get around this by calling it Payments Received and Payments Made which I find more intuitive.

When selecting between Spend money and Receive money, my issue with this is that it is a verb. Nowhere else in Manager I’m using this type of terminology. Everywhere else it’s New something... never a verb. But Bank Transactions and Cash Transactions are an exception. So how about we solve this problem by renaming those options to:

  • New Payment Received
  • New Payment Made

Then on printed payments, it would show the same title: Payment Received or Payment Made. This way I avoid verbs and have consistent terminology. New Payment Received creates a document called Payment Received. Rather than Receive Money creates a document called Bank Receipt.

As for Deposit and Withdrawal, perhaps Manager doesn’t need these terms at all. It could be again renamed to Payment Received and Payment Made. Keeping everything consistent.

Have a look at the latest version (18.8.37) how it feels.

This seems to work, @lubos. However, you need consistent terminology. In version 18.8.37, New Payment Received leads to a Deposit designation, and New Payment Made leads to a Withdrawal. The options in the Type dropdown need to be changed.

This also addresses the issue about credit cards @cfischer69 mentioned here: Lost spend and receive money buttons.

Version 18.8.39 shows new type options when editing bank/cash transactions.

Looks good, @lubos. But another issue rears its head.

An existing cash or bank transaction can be edited (or a new one can be altered before clicking Create), by changing the Type in the dropdown box. However, that does not change the sign on the total. So a Payment Made of +XX.XX, when converted to a Payment Received is still +XX.XX.

In one sense, that might be thought a good thing, because it lets you correct a mistake in selecting which type of transaction. But in another, it might lead to accidental errors if the type is changed on an existing transaction.


I don’t think this will be an issue. If it is, let’s look at it then and what can be done about it.