Transaction-Level and Split-Based Tagging in KMyMoney 5.2.1-6e26843

Hi everyone!

I’ve been a long-time KMyMoney user, but after updating to version 5.2.1-6e26843, I’ve noticed a significant change in how tags are handled.

In previous versions, I could apply tags to an entire transaction and simultaneously to individual splits. Now, it seems tags are strictly limited to the splits. This change is causing several issues for me:

  • Reporting: My existing reports are no longer functioning correctly.
  • Visibility: When listing old transactions for a specific tag, they appear in the list as usual; however, when I open the transaction details, the tag is missing (even if the transaction has no splits).

I tried to select multiple transactions under a tag in the Tags view, to see if I could “edit” or “add” a tag to all of them, but it is not possible. It would be a very nice feature, to be honest, and it could be an easy way to fix my issues (at least for transactions without splits, or adding the tag to all the splits).

I have two main questions:

  • Is there an official post or documentation explaining the logic behind this change?
  • What is the recommended way to “fix” or adapt my database to these changes so my reports work again?

Any guidance or links would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance.

A tag was always an attribute of a split and never one of a whole transaction. In fact, there has been a change between how 5.2.0 and newer versions handle tags compared to the 5.1 series of KMyMoney. There was a bug report that tags are not working properly and that was caused by the fact that the tag was applied to the wrong split.

In case you have a regular transaction it comprises out of two splits: one referencing the account (A) and the other one the category (C). When one assigned tags to this transaction in the UI the tags were attached to split A which caused all kinds of weirdness in reporting. The problem is that the tags need to be attached to C instead.

Regarding your other questions I need to take a closer look.

Could other “weirdness in reporting” as described in my bug 511104 be related to this change?

That’s probably one of them. But I don’t remember all the details.