Adding & Reconciling Manual Transactions

Thanks for the recommendation, @ossher.

I just published a new build of the Tiller Labs add-on and added Check Number to the reconcile-wizard fields. Have a look and let me know what you think.

Randy

1 Like

Thanks for sharing these transactions, @jbalian. I can reproduce the problem and I agree these transactions should reconcile. Let me dig into how the code is parsing these transactions and I’ll get back to you with a fix or a suggestion.

Randy

Many thanks, @randy, it’s great, just what I wanted! I really appreciate your adding the feature so promptly.

I have a couple of follow-on suggestions, much less important than the one you just added, but in my opinion they would make the user experience even better:

  1. Have the code check whether the check number from the manual transaction is a substring of the description from each candidate match, and put any transaction for which this is true at the top of the list of candidates.
  2. In addition, or possibly instead of (1), have an option (perhaps a checkbox along with the date bracketing slider) that enables fully automatic matching of transactions that meet the criterion in (1), without any need of user confirmation. In my case, this would handle all checks automatically, and it would not affect anyone whose bank does not put the check number in the description even if it is turned on.
  3. Change the date bracketing slider to a double-ended range slider, or add a check box, so that the user can select to see candidate matches from later dates only. The common case for reconcilable transactions, at least for me, is to enter the manual transaction with the date on which it occurred (even if I enter it later), and then reconcile it with the bank transaction when it comes in, which is always later. So I find it mildly annoying to see candidate matches that are earlier than the manual transaction itself.

Thanks for all your work on this helpful tool!

I tracked down the issue, @jbalian. The reconcile code was not parsing your Date format very intelligently— it had been tested for m/d/yyyy and you were using yyyy-mm-dd.

I just published an update. Please give it a try and let me know if the problem resolves.

Randy

P.S. Thanks for sharing some sample transactions. That really helped with the debug.

Wow, that’s great detective work. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Thanks

Randy - it has been working perfectly, thanks again