You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've requested a one and only one feature/change in this issue. I have not requested different features at once.
My issue is well-defined and describes how it should be implemented from UI/UX perspective.
What do you want to be added or improved?
I would like to see a "negative filter" option for tags in the filtering system, enabling users to exclude transactions with specific tags when generating statistics or searching items.
Why do you need it?
The current filtering system does not allow for exclusions, which makes it difficult to generate accurate reports in certain scenarios. For example, imagine this scenario:
Transaction A tags: Work, Travel
Transaction B tags: Travel
Currently, if I want to filter items in the Food category that include the Traveltag, the filter will include both A and B. Even if I don't select Work, transaction A will be included, because it does contain the Travel tag.
In this case, it's possible that your work expenses are eventually being reimbursed by your employer, and so you want to log them and classify them correctly, but have the option to exclude them when creating reports.
To provide another example, imagine you're having certain food/clothing/purchase transactions that have been associated to a very particular, one-off event (say, your car broke down in the middle of a trip and you have to purchase extra stuff). Perhaps at the end of the year you'd like to see your expenses but exclude the ones derived from this particular event.
Negative filters are very powerful for this kind of scenarios.
How do you imagine it?
In the filter sheet, beneath the existing "Tags" card, add a new section labeled "Exclude Tags." This section could function as follows:
Allow users to select tags they wish to exclude from the results.
Combine inclusions and exclusions logically. For example:
If a tag is included in "Tags" but excluded in "Exclude Tags," the exclusion takes precedence.
Update the UI to clearly separate the "Tags" (include) and "Exclude Tags" sections, ensuring it's intuitive.
Additional Context
Issue generated based on the discussion #265, created by @victor-marino. Thanks a lot for the idea! ❤️
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Prerequisites
What do you want to be added or improved?
I would like to see a "negative filter" option for tags in the filtering system, enabling users to exclude transactions with specific tags when generating statistics or searching items.
Why do you need it?
The current filtering system does not allow for exclusions, which makes it difficult to generate accurate reports in certain scenarios. For example, imagine this scenario:
Work
,Travel
Travel
Currently, if I want to filter items in the
Food
category that include theTravel
tag, the filter will include both A and B. Even if I don't selectWork
, transaction A will be included, because it does contain theTravel
tag.In this case, it's possible that your work expenses are eventually being reimbursed by your employer, and so you want to log them and classify them correctly, but have the option to exclude them when creating reports.
To provide another example, imagine you're having certain food/clothing/purchase transactions that have been associated to a very particular, one-off event (say, your car broke down in the middle of a trip and you have to purchase extra stuff). Perhaps at the end of the year you'd like to see your expenses but exclude the ones derived from this particular event.
Negative filters are very powerful for this kind of scenarios.
How do you imagine it?
In the filter sheet, beneath the existing "Tags" card, add a new section labeled "Exclude Tags." This section could function as follows:
Additional Context
Issue generated based on the discussion #265, created by @victor-marino. Thanks a lot for the idea! ❤️
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: