oddness with blank payee and missing category

[Thomas Baumgart]

Hi,

On Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2017 14:06:31 CEST Jack wrote:

> I know I shouldn't expect any "fix" unless I can clearly identify what
> is broken.  I do have some more ideas to play with, but as it's only a
> nuisance, and not a show-stopper, it's not a very high priority.
> 
> One thing I did notice while testing - I tried to create a new payee
> with a blank name, and it said there already was one, and did I really
> mean to create another.  I said no, although I might try yes later.
> The problem is, there is not any payee with an empty name, so I'm not
> sure why it gave that error.

Strange, if no payee with empty name is present and you try to rename a new 
payee to have an empty name then that message you mentioned comes up. That 
certainly is confusing and probably not intended. The same message comes up if 
you answer yes and do it again (which now makes sense). Doing it twice simply 
leaves two payees with an empty name. Nothing special, and KMyMoney does not 
get confused since it has assigned two different IDs but the user does since 
he cannot distinguish.

Going to the ledger and open the payee combo-box popup now shows three empty 
entries at the top of the list (makes sense: two created above and one which 
KMyMoney provides meaning 'no payee info'). All that is OK. Maybe, that is the 
reason why KMyMoney warns that a payee with an empty name already exists as it 
means its own. Maybe, the warning should be changed in this case to say 
something like "Do you really ... as it is later on not possible to 
distinguish no payee assignment from this one" (I leave the complete wording 
to the native speakers here and am open for suggestions).

> One other thing I realized is that I have automatic matching ON for
> that blank payee, and that is clearly why so many imported transactions
> are using that payee.  What I might to is to change the name of that
> payee to not be blank, and then I'll probably be able to remove the
> payee from the transactions that don't need it.

... and it will ceratainly help to get rid of the false matching (which you 
can also do by setting the "payee without a name"'s matching configuration to 
'no matching'.

> Question - should it also be safe just to change   Payee="P000845"  to
> Payee="" in the file directly without breaking anything else?  It might
> end up being the fastest way, but I'm not sure I trust it.  (I would
> definitely make several backups first :-))

Yes, that can be done. It leaves the transaction with no payee then. Once all 
of them have been processed that way, you should be able to delete the payee 
completely (giving it a name like "no payee" before reduces the confusion). 
It's exactly what KMyMoney does internally if you

a) rename the empty payee to "no payee"
b) go to a transaction and get rid of "no payee" as payee
c) repeat b) until no more transactions are assigned

which is a bit more tedious if we talk about a lot of transactions compared to 
manipulating the file directly.

Backups are always a good idea when fooling around with the file ;)

Hope that helps.

Thomas


> 
> On 2017.07.26 12:30, Łukasz Wojniłowicz wrote:
> > Hi Jack,
> > 
> > We can forbid importing payees with empty names. Not reproducible
> > bugs are
> > hard to fix.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Łukasz
> > 
> > Dnia wtorek, 25 lipca 2017 19:22:48 CEST Jack pisze:
> > > In checking for unused payees, I found I have a blank payee
> > 
> > (name="" in
> > 
> > > the xml file, so really blank, no spaces, it happens to be
> > > id="P000854").  I have no idea how this got created - probably
> > 
> > during
> > 
> > > an OFX import years ago, as the oldest transaction for this account
> > > (from the Payees view) is in 2014, and is an investment transaction
> > > imported from Merrill Lynch, which as caused me all sorts of issues
> > > over the years.
> > > 
> > >   At some later point, I eventually want to get rid of this payee,
> > 
> > as
> > 
> > > it seems all the transactions listing this payee should really not
> > 
> > have
> > 
> > > any payee - they are investment transactions and transfers.
> > > 
> > > However, in looking at the list, several of the transactions have
> > 
> > "***
> > 
> > > UNASSIGNED ***".  It seems these are all transfers between a
> > > brokerage/checking account and another account (brokerage or
> > 
> > checking
> > 
> > > or cash).  In looking carefully at these, they all have a memo.  If
> > 
> > I
> > 
> > > remove the memo, the "*** UNASSIGNED ***" disappears from the
> > > transaction in the Payee view.  I have tried to create a small test
> > 
> > KMY
> > 
> > > file, but have so far not been able to reproduce the issue.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure if I want to call it a bug, since I don't think the
> > 
> > blank
> > 
> > > payee should exist at all, and I suspect that if the transfer
> > > transaction were missing a payee, KMM would not complain about it
> > > missing a category.
> > > 
> > > Any thoughts or comments?
> > > 
> > > Jack

-- 

Regards

Thomas Baumgart

https://www.telegram.org/ Telegram, the better whats app
-------------------------------------------------------------
A: I hear that if you play the Windows XP CD backwards, you
 get a Satanic message!
B: That's nothing. If you play it forward, it installs WinXP!
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 208 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kmymoney-devel/attachments/20170728/8bbde1ec/attachment.sig>