OFX Import Matching Problem

[Brendan Coupe]

If I understood Thomas correctly matching is only looking at existing
transactions in the account. That works fine for me when I duplicate
the previous paycheck prior to importing the OXF file from my bank.
Not an ideal way to do this but when I don't it matches the closest
amount for that payee since the beginning of time.

The paycheck has 15 splits so a single default account does not work.
Even if I could assign 15 default accounts I would have to update them
fairly often or they would become less and less useful.

Basically what I am asking for is an option in the payee default
account settings that says pick the closest amount in the past xx days
and use that/those category(ies). That alone would eliminate this
weekly problem for me and probably many others that are less frequent.
The global settings and my original suggestion are probably not needed
if this setting was added for each payee.

----
Brendan Coupe

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:07 PM Jack <ostroffjh at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> On 2019.06.22 11:51, Thomas Baumgart wrote:
> > On Samstag, 22. Juni 2019 17:16:45 CEST Brendan Coupe wrote:
> >
> > > I see why my 30 day limit did not help. It does when I manually copy
> > > the most recent paycheck and then import the OFX data.
> > >
> > > I have an idea how to deal with this. In the Default Account tab for
> > > the payee there is a checkbox "Use the default category..." If
> > checked
> > > you can select a single default category.
> > >
> > > How about making 4 radio buttons:
> > >
> > > - None
> > > - Most recent transaction
> > > - Closest amount
> > > - Use the default category... (enable the dropdown list when
> > selected)
> >
> > How about a system wide setting with the above option set (maybe
> > without the last one) and a per payee override option? Introduction
> > of this feature would be done as follows:
> >
> > a) the system wide default setting is "closest amount" (which
> > reflects today's default)
> > b) payees that don't have the category set will use the system wide
> > setting
> > c) payees that have a default category set will override the system
> > wide setting with the default category
> I THINK that sounds right, but I'm wondering what should be per account
> vs per payee vs per category.
>
> I may be over thinking it - but when looking for a transaction to
> "match," am I missing something, or do we still have a lack of clear
> terminology to distinguish finding the existing transaction to use as a
> "model" [again - not a formal term] for an imported transaction vs.
> what I think of as "true" matching - to find if the imported
> transaction is a duplicate of one already present?  I hate to admit it,
> but I'm still not completely clear of that steps followed - first
> (assuming the imported transaction is not a duplicate) to find the best
> transaction to model (based on what) and then whether to use the payee
> and/or category of that transaction, or the default category of the
> assumed payee.  Just to add to the mix here, the problem I often face
> is for a payee which usually has transactions with a single category
> (marked default for that payee) I sometimes create split transactions -
> and it is almost always wrong to use one of these split transactions as
> the model for a newly imported transaction.  How might that fit into
> this process?
>
> >
> > Does that make sense? Any objections anyone?
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:25 AM Thomas Baumgart <thb at net-bembel.de>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Freitag, 21. Juni 2019 22:55:29 CEST Brendan Coupe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm running a week old build from the 5.0 branch on Fedora 29.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I download my savings account transaction using online
> > banking
> > > > > the paycheck frequently matches with a very old paycheck. This
> > results
> > > > > in the splits being way off.
> > > > >
> > > > > This happens when the amount of the new paycheck is not very
> > close to
> > > > > the most recent paycheck which has been happening a lot lately
> > due to
> > > > > reimbursed business expanses.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the import tab of the ledge settings I have tried setting
> > "Match
> > > > > transaction within days" from 7 days (paycheck is weekly) to 30
> > days
> > > > > and the same thing happens. KMM is definitely matching
> > transactions
> > > > > that are much more than 30 days old. In fact the transaction
> > that it
> > > > > matched was only $0.01 closer to the new transaction than the
> > previous
> > > > > paycheck (difference was $8.29 versus $8.30). The transaction it
> > > > > matched is over 18 months old. It appears to be ignoring the
> > "Match
> > > > > transaction within days" setting. it's simply matching the
> > transaction
> > > > > from the same payee that is closest in value.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm pretty sure this is fairly new behavior but I'm not sure if
> > it
> > > > > started with the initial version of KMM5 that I used or more
> > recently.
> > > >
> > > > This probably goes back to a change I made in January this year:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://cgit.kde.org/kmymoney.git/commit/?id=447213e04d6e7ab9022caeb5c258800625036967
> > > >
> > > > which added the part of choosing an ancient transaction based on
> > the smallest difference in amount whereas before it only used old
> > transactions if the amount was identical.
> > > >
> > > > Here's what I found in the code (which perfectly explains what
> > you encounter):
> > > >
> > > > In case the payee name has been found, the following will take
> > place:
> > > >
> > > >       // Fill in other side of the transaction (category/etc)
> > based on payee
> > > >       //
> > > >                 // [...]
> > > >                 //
> > > >       // We'll search for the most recent transaction in this
> > account with
> > > >       // this payee.  If this reference transaction is a simple
> > 2-split
> > > >       // transaction, it's simple.  If it's a complex split, and
> > the amounts
> > > >       // are different, we have a problem.  Somehow we have to
> > balance the
> > > >       // transaction.  For now, we'll leave it unbalanced, and
> > let the user
> > > >       // handle it.
> > > >
> > > > For the category to be found, the first thing is to check if the
> > payee has a default category assigned. If yes, it is taken and we're
> > done. If not, all transactions for that payee in the account will be
> > searched backwards. Note: no date filtering here, which certainly is
> > the cause of the behavior you encounter. The algorithm then works as
> > follows:
> > > >
> > > >           // if there is more than one matching transaction, try
> > to be a little
> > > >           // smart about which one we use.  we scan them all and
> > check if
> > > >           // we find an exact match or use the one with the
> > closest value
> > > >
> > > > The scan works backwards with the last one being the default. So
> > we have at least one transaction for that payee, and in case of
> > multiple the one with the least difference in amount will be
> > selected. Then we continue with:
> > > >
> > > >                 // in case the old transaction has two splits
> > > >                 // we simply inverse the amount of the current
> > > >                 // transaction found in s1. In other cases (more
> > > >                 // than two splits we copy all splits and don't
> > > >                 // modify the splits. This may lead to unbalanced
> > > >                 // transactions which the user has to fix manually
> > > >
> > > > The point is, that we are not talking about 'matching' at this
> > point but automatic categorization of the imported transaction.
> > Matching happens in the next step when KMyMoney tries to figure out
> > if you already have the said transaction on file (entered manually
> > for example). And it is for that matching that the interval is used,
> > but not the automatic categorization happening in the step before.
> > Matching actually means merge two transactions (the one on file and
> > the imported one) into a single one. This is not what is happening
> > for you and what you certainly don't want with older transactions.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure at this point what happens, if I increase the
> > matching period beyond one month and another salary payment comes in
> > and it matches. It is certainly not detected as a duplicate but does
> > it match the transactions? I honestly don't know and have never tried.
> > > >
> > > > Why did I implement the feature as it is: I receive two payments
> > with very different amounts from the same payee each month and they
> > differ in categories. One of the amounts varies each month and the
> > other one is fix (we talk salary and reimbursement here as well, but
> > I receive them in two payments). The old behavior was always wrong,
> > because taking the last payment from that payee as categorization
> > base is certainly false and only worked when there was no
> > reimbursement (which means I received two salary payments in a row).
> > So for me, a matching period of a few days is OK, but for the
> > categorization I probably need a few months. The default to take the
> > last one on file if nothing else was found is probably a good
> > decision.
> > > >
> > > > Would a new setting to limit the search for transactions to do
> > the auto categorization help here? What would best describe it and
> > what would be a neat name for it?
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas, anyone?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Thomas Baumgart
> >
> > https://www.signal.org/       Signal, the better WhatsApp
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > A: Because it destroys the flow of the conversation
> > Q: Why is top-posting bad?
> > A: Top-posting
> > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>