Merge imported transactions should prefer the human-entered check date?

I enter check details in Skrooge as I write them[*]. A month later I download financial transactions from my financial institution and run File > Import > Import… to load them into Skrooge. If a check has cleared,in a Transactions view I select my manual transaction and the imported (blue) one and choose “Merge imported transactions” from the context menu since they represent the same transaction.

The glitch is the merged transaction prefers the date from my financial institution, which is the date the check amount left my account, which is often weeks after I wrote the check. So I lose the date I wrote on the check (although my financial institution lets me view a scanned image of the check for a year or so).

Is this intentional behavior? Preferring the transaction date means the account balance is more accurate and it means account reconciliation can be a little more straightforward, since the check doesn’t appear in transaction date order until the money went out. But the date I wrote the check means something as well

I guess Skrooge could add a separate “Date written” field to transactions; this could also be used for check deposits in which likewise have a date the payer wrote on the check, and the date the check amount appeared in my account (and a third, the date I deposited). But that’s more confusion. People can always add dates to the Comment field.

Cheers! Thanks for an excellent program.

[*] Note for young people: a “check” is a piece of paper upon which you write someone else’s name and an amount (with a stick full of ink called a “pen”) that transfers money from your bank account to someone else’s bank account :wink:

Hello skiepage,

you’ve accurately described Skrooge’s behavior.
Yes, this is intentional, as the transaction date provided by the bank strikes me as more accurate than one entered by the user.
Instead of using the “comment” field, I suggest creating a property where you can store whatever value you like.

We could also consider developing this feature:

  • Add an option: “Save user’s values ​​as properties on merge”
  • When this option is enabled, overwritten values ​​are saved as properties (using a naming convention—e.g., Date => saved_date) during the merge.

What do you think of this proposal?