[Kmymoney-devel] Matching question, Was: [Bug 345259] The date is ignored when matching

[Jack]

[To the list, not posted to the bug]

I'm getting two strange behaviors on matching two transactions.   
Allan's latest patch from the bug is involved here, but I'm not sure  
it's responsible for both issues.

I have an old, manually entered transaction from 4 April (longer ago  
than the match window).  I just imported (OFX direct connect) a new  
transaction for the same check.  Since it was outside the window, it  
did not match, but just imported as a new transaction.  That makes  
sense and seems correct.  The original transaction has a payee and a  
category.  The imported transaction has a different payee (correct,  
based on my payee matching) but no category.  I started by simply  
accepting the imported transaction.  Then if I select the two  
transactions and click on "Match" I get a popup "The transaction  
post-dates are not within the 'matchinterval' setting.  If you wish to  
import the transaction, click 'Yes'."  First, it's already imported,  
I'm now trying to match.  However, I"m not sure it would be good to  
change the wording of the warning if it ever does show up when actually  
importing.  Second, if I click 'Yes,' what happens depends on the order  
in which I selected the two transactions.

If I select the older (manual) transaction first, after the merge, the  
transaction retains the older date, but has the payee and missing  
category from the imported transaction.  Also, Bank Entry shows the  
older (manual) date and Your entry shows the newer (imported) date and  
memo.  The transaction's memo does contain the memos from both  
transactions.  On the other hand, if I select the newer (imported)  
transaction first, after the merge, the transaction has the newer date,  
retains the correct (from the manual transaction) payee and category,  
and the Bank entry and Your entry fields show the correct dates and  
memos.

Rather than trying to guess exactly what is happening, I simply observe  
that it appears the order of transaction selection has an effect on the  
results of the match in terms of which transaction's fields are  
retained in the matched transaction.  I'll see if I can capture screen  
shots to make it clearer what is happening.  I also wonder if I should  
try this again, using a version before Allan's last patch was applied,  
to see what happens.

Jack