Ability to apply multiple Transaction Rules to transactions (edited)
All rules should be checked against a transaction and applied in the order they match. As such, a rule which modifies the payee of a transaction could cause a lower rule to match against the new payee. To help inspect the impact of a given rule, transaction details should show all rules which mutated the transaction.
Comments
-
The thing is - This might allow a user who is ( a ) not careful, ( b ) not aware, or ( c ) malicious to create an infinite loop (basically, never ending rule execution, which is expensive on cloud computing).
For example, Someone recently posted a Best Buy example, so I'll use that name as an example here:
Rule 1: Change Payee name from something that contains "BESTBUY" to something that contains "Best Buy"
Rule 2: Change Payee name from something that contains "Best Buy" to something that contains "BESTBUY"
Rule 1 gets hit, triggers rule 2, which triggers rule 1 which triggers rule 2, which.. you get the idea, right?
-Rob
—
Rob Wilkens - RobWilkens.com0 -
Rules would be applied using a cascading logic. So, in your case, both rules would apply and the payee would end up as BESTBUY. There shouldn't be any looping as the rules are evaluated from top to bottom a single time, just as they are now, but without an early-exit. This is how Monarch handles Rules.
0 -
tbh, i had not frequently used rules, so i was unaware they are currently cascading. I typically manually enter txs, to avoid the 4+ hour update delay (and with banks that only download posted transactions, multiple days) so rules do not often apply for me.
Got my vote for now, but something like “and/or” rules could be another way to accomplish the same thing i believe
—
Rob Wilkens - RobWilkens.com0 -
@xt741258, thanks for posting your feature request to the Community!
Since we already have an existing request for the ability to see which rules are applied to a transaction, and since you want to outline and request just one enhancement per Idea post in accordance with our guidelines here, this request has been edited to only request the ability to apply multiple rules to a transaction.
The request for the ability to see the rules to apply to a transaction can be found here:
I hope this helps!
-Coach Natalie
0 -
There are benefits to allowing the application of multiple rules, but I think the possibility for confusion outweighs those benefits.
Users add rules as the need occurs and (it appears that) newly added rules go at the top of the list. Some users here have hundreds of rules. It could be difficult to craft new rules (and achieve a certain result) if you had to take into account how the transaction might be changed again by a rule you created months ago.
I appreciate the idea that users could trace through a list of the rules that were applied to figure out why things didn't go as expected, but I think for most users that would be confusing.
DryHeat
-Quicken Classic (1990-2020), CountAbout (2021-2024), Simplifi (2025-…)0 -
Cascading rules definitely benefits from the proposal linked by @Coach Natalie above which reveals any applicable rules for a given transaction, eliminating the need to manually walk through your rules logic.
0 -
which reveals any applicable rules for a given transaction, eliminating the need to manually walk through your rules logic.
Right… That's what I was referring to when I said "trace through a list of the rules that were applied." (I think you originally suggested that in your first post, but crossed it out.)
Another approach would be the one used in Outlook, where every rule has the following option:
If that were on by default it might make transition to a cascading rule system easier and avoid confusion.
DryHeat
-Quicken Classic (1990-2020), CountAbout (2021-2024), Simplifi (2025-…)0
