In response to your question, @heather, from 2 days ago, my report is similar to others…I was still getting the error.
The situation is more or less resolved as, based on @Darin and @Exo3’s reports, I decided to remove a single savings account and re-add it. Upside: it’s good to see some movement here! Downside: Tons of duplicate entries to disentangle because Tiller sees the newly-added accounts as distinct from what was there before. This situation is compounded by my having over a dozen Ally accounts*, which is hopefully a situation unique to me right now.
It took me a couple of hours to get my Transactions sheet cleaned up. There are still “ghost” accounts on the Balances sheet, which I’m about to clean up by replacing the old UUID-ish values in the Account ID column of the Balance History sheet with their updated values. If I understand the formulas in Accounts and in Balances correctly, this should get me back in shape with a consistent history back to when I started with Tiller.
I wonder if there’s a way for Tiller to compare a few pieces of data from “newly” added accounts against already-linked accounts in order to avoid this kind of duplication. It makes sense to me that you’d have your own db IDs for the accounts, if for no other reason than to avoid storing the full bank account number on your servers (hurray for security!). On the other hand, between the institution name, the last-4 digits of the bank account number, and perhaps one more datum (date opened, perhaps?), it seems like it should be possible to identify and handle an already-linked account. 🤷❔
Anyway, that’s my characteristically-verbose answer. I screen-recorded most of the process, so if you have any specific questions about what things looked like for me, I should be able to answer pretty precisely.
Thanks (once again) Heather!
-C
*In case you’re curious, the reason I have so many Ally accounts is is that they allows unlimited savings accounts, and I’ve been successfully using that fact to do “real” envelope budgeting. Most digital systems allow negative balances in envelopes, which is the virtual equivalent of subverting an envelope system by buying on credit and placing an IOU in the envelope to represent negative cash. Separate accounts are an excellent proxy for the real, hard boundaries of a physical envelope system.