[GNC] Matching error in OFX import

[Jean L]

We might need a bit more info to give a useful answer. But just to be sure:
- The FITID of the transactions in the OFX file are all different, 
right? That's an absolute requirement, not just within a single OFX 
file, but from ofx to ofx, the FITID is supposed to identify one and 
only 1 transaction. If you re-download the same transaction the FITID is 
supposed to be the same as the first time you downloaded it. GC uses 
this to know which transactions have already been matched when it looks 
at an imported OFX file.

- Is the problem that you have similar transactions in your register 
(that you've entered manually) with the same amount and close dates? 
It's not impossible that GC is a bit confused because it finds 2 or more 
transactions in your register than seem to match 1 or more transactions 
in your OFX. In other words, GC does not have a way to figure out which 
OFX transaction should be matched with which transaction in your 
register if everything is very similar between them.
I must say I've never run into this issue, so I don't know for a fact 
what GC does in that case.

J

On 12/30/2022 5:36 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> With the same caveat about my being new to this...
>
> My transaction records show regular, very similar, transactions. The same
> institution, identical amounts, usually close but not identical dates.
>
> The importer's matcher is confused by these similar transactions. It marks
> them in red and refuses to do anything with them directly. I can unmark
> them, and then get them to import, but there are other fields (specifically
> there is a field "<FITID>" in the OFX file that seems like it should
> distinguish them, even if everything else is identical (I'm assuming FITID
> is "Financial Transaction ID", but I could be wrong since that's just a
> guess!)
>
> In the interest of being clear, these "conflicting" transactions are in the
> *same* OFX file, it's not trying to match against something already in
> place.
>
> Can I do anything to get this to behave more helpfully?
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>