fix!: remove date filter from matched vouchers#386
Conversation
Confidence Score: 5/5This looks safe to merge.
Reviews (4): Last reviewed commit: "fix: accept old params and show warning" | Re-trigger Greptile |
|
@0xD0M1M0 irgendwelche Einwände? |
|
@barredterra The change makes sense. I have not noticed any negative effects with the prior implementation, but I also see no problems with removing the filter either. I possibly see a longer list for possible matched vouchers. I would introduce #309 to limit the lists lengths and for less errors on matchings. |
|
@Mergifyio backport version-15-hotfix |
✅ Backports have been createdDetails
Cherry-pick of 85dac55 has failed: To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 16.2.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
tl;dr: Payment Entry & Journal Entry in "Match Voucher" are no longer filtered by date, matching the other voucher types. We remove these filters wherever we don't need them.
Statement date filters were applied inconsistently: they scoped bank transactions and Payment Entry / Journal Entry matching, but not invoices or other voucher types. That made the same date fields mean different things depending on voucher type, and optional or partial dates could silently return no PE/JE matches.
Date filters now only define the statement period you are reconciling. Voucher discovery is per bank transaction and relies on ranking (amount, reference, party, date proximity) instead of hard date cutoffs, so older open invoices and backdated entries remain matchable.
Removed the reference-date filter UI because it only ever affected PE/JE and no longer matches how matching works.