Suggestion: Checkbox to approve transactions and indicator icon for notes

[omidkrad]

This is a feature that I would like to start implementing if I get the time. The related issues reported to Mint can be found here and here.

Requirement for this is that the user defines the "Approved" tag so that we can look up the checkbox value and make it save on the server. The approved checkbox is displayed next to each transaction.

If we can do this then another similar feature would be to show an icon next to transactions that have a note. The way it is implemented in Mint right now is just so dumb that you have to open the edit pane for each transaction to see if it has a note or not. That makes notes pretty useless and they don't seem to care to fix it. See this related issue.

Thanks!

[vandre]

I really like the Notes idea. It should be pretty straight-forward to implement it as the JSON object returned from the server for transactions always has a Notes property.

For the Approved tag, how about implementing it the other way around, i.e. ability to tag transactions as 'Needs Review'. I don't have any scientific data, but I would think that it would be less effort for the user to just tag those transactions that they don't recognize as opposed to those that they do.

Related to this. The tagging UI is a bit clumsy right now. Ideally I would add a Tagging column so that users can easily tag a transaction.

[vandre]

Ok I added the Notes icon for transactions shown in the Overview page. In addtion if you hover over the transaction description the text not will show in a tooltip.

I don't have time right now to implement it for the Transactions page, but it would be done in a similar way. The challenge is that I don't have control over the rendering of transactions table in the Transactions page, so the notes markup would have to be injected once Mint has finished rendering the table.

[omidkrad]

Awesome. My ideal transaction grid is like the following:
Date, Account, Description, NoteIcon, VerifiedCheckBox, Category, SplitIcon, Amount

The way I've seen review checkbox working in other accounting programs (such as WaveApps) is that there is a Verified checkbox in front of each transaction. When Verified is checked then that line of transaction fades out and goes in the verified list. Then you have a filter that you can select to show Verified, Unverified or All transactions. On implementing it the other way around, tagging as 'Needs Review', IMO does not serve the same purpose as marking it as approved. My take on it is that 'Needs Review' means I don't know what this is now, go and investigate it, whereas 'Approved' means that you have already checked it and it is correct and you don't need to check it next time. Also by verifying you know that Mint has not automatically renamed the transaction to something else. After seeing some cases that Mint automatically renamed my transactions to unrelated purchases I cannot easily trust the Mint descriptions without verifying the original bank descriptions. Maybe we can have both states, meaning that a transaction can be either unverified, verified, or needs review.

Back to notes, I think other than transaction notes it can be a great place for storing meta data that will be stored on the server. For example Mojito could look for some JSON data in the notes to find attachments and show them with some indicator.

{ mojito: { attachments: { check: 'http://window.texas.gov/taxinfo/check/checkSample.jpg', receipt: 'https://drive.google.com/MyPrivateLink', 'custom name': 'http://some_other_url' } } }

[omidkrad]

Hi, I think the 'note' icon is broken.

[vandre]

Hi Omid,

I don't personally use this feature. Have you had a chance to investigate
why is it not working anymore?. To the best of my knowledge none of the
recent commits would had affected this...

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Omid K. Rad notifications@github.com
wrote:

Hi, I think the 'note' icon is broken.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3 (comment).

[omidkrad]

This got me again. I haven't had a chance to debug this. The code and the data model don't seem to have changed.