https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=345259
--- Comment #5 from allan <agande...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to allan from comment #4) > (In reply to Jack from comment #3) > > I think there (reasonably) is a difference of the effect of the setting on > > what the system will do iteself, and what it will allow the user to do. I > > think we all agree on the effect on automatic matching of imported > > transactions. I also think we agree that for a manually selected match, it > > should at minimum show an exception or warning if the dates are too far > > apart. I also think that leaves two differences. First, whether this is an > > explicit bug or enhancement request - but that is not really important. > > > Second, should it actually allow the user to say "Yes, I really do want to > > match these two transactions" without forcing any change to the data. I > > suppose my enhancement request would be for it to allow the user to select > > either date as the one to keep on the merged transaction, but I certainly > > want to allow the merge, since most of the time I would make such a choice, > > I really do mean it - it's not an accident or wrong choice on my part. > > A suitably wide setting for the match-window should allow you to match > such transactions, shouldn't it? That is more or less what happens now, > with the setting being ignored. Whichever date is retained after > matching could be adjusted as required. > I'm not sure about this, but you could try experimenting. > The retained date possibly depends on which transaction is selected first and > which second. I think that may be what happens now. Whichever transaction is selected last is the one whose date is retained. (I'll verify this as my version has been patched.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ KMyMoney-devel mailing list KMyMoney-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmymoney-devel
