Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix rounding of split rules #4190

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 19, 2025

Conversation

jfdoming
Copy link
Contributor

@jfdoming jfdoming commented Jan 18, 2025

The rounding adjustment was being applied the wrong way 😅 This PR fixes it and adds tests

Closes #3934

@actual-github-bot actual-github-bot bot changed the title Fix rounding of split rules [WIP] Fix rounding of split rules Jan 18, 2025
Copy link

netlify bot commented Jan 18, 2025

Deploy Preview for actualbudget ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 14bef9b
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/actualbudget/deploys/678c26111bff1f0008588075
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-4190.demo.actualbudget.org
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 18, 2025

Bundle Stats — desktop-client

Hey there, this message comes from a GitHub action that helps you and reviewers to understand how these changes affect the size of this project's bundle.

As this PR is updated, I'll keep you updated on how the bundle size is impacted.

Total

Files count Total bundle size % Changed
14 6.61 MB → 6.62 MB (+8 kB) +0.12%
Changeset
File Δ Size
locale/pt-BR.json 📈 +8 kB (+8.02%) 99.8 kB → 107.81 kB
View detailed bundle breakdown

Added

No assets were added

Removed

No assets were removed

Bigger

Asset File Size % Changed
static/js/pt-BR.js 99.8 kB → 107.81 kB (+8 kB) +8.02%

Smaller

No assets were smaller

Unchanged

Asset File Size % Changed
static/js/resize-observer.js 18.37 kB 0%
static/js/useAccountPreviewTransactions.js 1.63 kB 0%
static/js/workbox-window.prod.es5.js 5.69 kB 0%
static/js/AppliedFilters.js 10.21 kB 0%
static/js/indexeddb-main-thread-worker-e59fee74.js 13.5 kB 0%
static/js/BackgroundImage.js 122.29 kB 0%
static/js/en-GB.js 97.12 kB 0%
static/js/en.js 97.98 kB 0%
static/js/narrow.js 84.7 kB 0%
static/js/wide.js 101.22 kB 0%
static/js/uk.js 119.92 kB 0%
static/js/ReportRouter.js 1.59 MB 0%
static/js/index.js 4.27 MB 0%

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 18, 2025

Bundle Stats — loot-core

Hey there, this message comes from a GitHub action that helps you and reviewers to understand how these changes affect the size of this project's bundle.

As this PR is updated, I'll keep you updated on how the bundle size is impacted.

Total

Files count Total bundle size % Changed
1 1.33 MB 0%

Changeset

No files were changed

View detailed bundle breakdown

Added

No assets were added

Removed

No assets were removed

Bigger

No assets were bigger

Smaller

No assets were smaller

Unchanged

Asset File Size % Changed
kcab.worker.js 1.33 MB 0%

@jfdoming jfdoming changed the title [WIP] Fix rounding of split rules Fix rounding of split rules Jan 18, 2025
@jfdoming jfdoming requested a review from youngcw January 18, 2025 21:59
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 18, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces changes to the rules.test.ts and rules.ts files in the packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/ directory. A new test case is added to validate the remainder method's behavior when splitting transaction amounts. In the rules.ts file, the execSplitActions function's logic for adjusting the last split transaction's amount has been modified. The change involves switching from decrementing to incrementing the amount based on the remainder calculation, which could impact how split transactions are distributed.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Fix $.02 discrepancy in auto split payee transactions [#3934] The PR does not address the specific bug related to the $.02 discrepancy in split transactions.
Ensure accurate remainder calculation for split transactions [#3934]

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

sparkles: Merged

Suggested reviewers

  • youngcw
  • matt-fidd

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0cb9fb8 and 14bef9b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.test.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: jfdoming
PR: actualbudget/actual#3641
File: packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts:687-693
Timestamp: 2024-11-10T16:45:25.627Z
Learning: In `packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts`, within the `execSplitActions` function, the zeroth index of `newTransactions` is reserved for actions that apply to all splits, so split transactions start from index 1.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
  • GitHub Check: build (macos-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Analyze
  • GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
  • GitHub Check: Wait for Netlify build to finish
  • GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.test.ts (1)

680-715: Well-structured test case with comprehensive coverage!

The test effectively validates the rounding behavior of the remainder method for split transactions. It covers:

  • Negative amounts: -2397 → [-1198, -1199]
  • Odd positive amounts: 123 → [62, 61]
  • Even amounts: 100 → [50, 50]

The test ensures that:

  1. Rounding adjustments are applied correctly for both positive and negative amounts
  2. The sum of split amounts always equals the original amount
  3. No unnecessary rounding occurs when the amount splits evenly

Finishing Touches

  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.test.ts (1)

680-709: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage for remainder rounding.

The test case effectively validates the rounding behavior for both negative and positive amounts, ensuring the remainder is correctly distributed to the last split transaction.

Consider adding a test case for an amount that divides evenly (e.g., 100 split into 50, 50) to verify that no adjustment is needed when remainder is 0. Example:

 expect(rule.exec({ imported_payee: 'James', amount: 123 })).toMatchObject({
   subtransactions: [{ amount: 62 }, { amount: 61 }],
 });
+
+expect(rule.exec({ imported_payee: 'James', amount: 100 })).toMatchObject({
+  subtransactions: [{ amount: 50 }, { amount: 50 }],
+});
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between eb31071 and 0cb9fb8.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • upcoming-release-notes/4190.md is excluded by !**/*.md
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.test.ts (1 hunks)
  • packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: jfdoming
PR: actualbudget/actual#3641
File: packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts:687-693
Timestamp: 2024-11-10T16:45:25.627Z
Learning: In `packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts`, within the `execSplitActions` function, the zeroth index of `newTransactions` is reserved for actions that apply to all splits, so split transactions start from index 1.
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts (1)
Learnt from: jfdoming
PR: actualbudget/actual#3641
File: packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts:687-693
Timestamp: 2024-11-10T16:45:25.627Z
Learning: In `packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts`, within the `execSplitActions` function, the zeroth index of `newTransactions` is reserved for actions that apply to all splits, so split transactions start from index 1.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/rules.ts (1)

756-756: LGTM! Fix for split transaction rounding.

The change correctly adjusts the last split transaction's amount by adding (instead of subtracting) the remainder. This ensures that split transactions sum up to the total amount. For example, when splitting $100 into three equal parts, it will now correctly distribute as 33, 33, 34 instead of 33, 33, 32.

@jfdoming jfdoming merged commit 705985a into actualbudget:master Jan 19, 2025
20 checks passed
@jfdoming jfdoming deleted the jfdoming/fix-split-rounding branch January 19, 2025 01:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Bug]: Auto Split Payee always leaves out $.02
2 participants