Reconciliation remains unexplained dispite complete (but empty) explanation

We are experiencing some unwanted behaviour of the indicator on reconciliations in the following case:

  • The reconciliation template is marked as ‘needs explanation’
  • The reconciliation contains input fields for a.o. account collections
  • The account collection(s) has a default value of a certain account range
  • The reconciliation’s ‘unexplained’ indicator is calculated using a.o. the default account range when no custom range is put in by the user

The behaviour we experience on multiple such reconciliations of multiple ledgers is as follows:

  • The indicator of the ‘unexplained’ tag in the template resolves to a green circle without the user needing to adjust the value of the account collection input, and without filling in other values in the input fields. i.e.: the reconciliation is effectively explained without input from the user. This is correct behaviour.
  • However, the indicator on the top of the reconciliation page (i.e. the one that ‘counts’ for the completion progress) keeps indicating an ‘unexplained’ status with a red triangle. This is unexpected behaviour (at least for us): the calculation of the ‘unexplained’ tag resolves to 0, but the reconciliation is not marked as explained.

The reason seems to be that there is no input provided on the reconciliation: the moment an arbitrary input field is provided with a value, the indicator shows the correct symbol, even if this input value is a currency value of 0, or even a textual value that is not used in the calculation of the unexplained tag.
However, providing such ‘empty’ input is not desirable since this can be visible in the exports.

We discovered the following work-around:

  • click an account collection input field (# )
  • confirm the default value with the blue (v) button
    This action seems to trigger an update to the reconciliation’s indicator to the correct value/symbol.

Is the behaviour mentioned above considered a bug or a feature? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

It is quite annoying for us, since the users don’t know what to do: they see a green indicator in the template, with all of the values proposed by default being correct, while the reconciliation remains being indicated as unexplained.

Thanks in advance.

Hey @robin.bailleul,

It’s a little bit of both. For now, the unexplained-tags needs a trigger like an input is…

This isn’t behaviour you’d expect of course, and I’ve already made this known to @Tim .
There’s not really a solution for this, unless if you let an user fill in something.

For instance: you can always create a boolean in the template that needs to be checked (as sort of a review), but also let’s you block the user of more input (in your case, there’s no really input of course) :

{% t "Reviewed by:" %} 
{% input custom.check.inputs as:boolean %} {% if custom.check.inputs == 'true' %}{{ }} {% t "on" %} {{ custom.check.inputs.updated_at | date:"%d/%m/%Y" }}{% endif %}

{% if custom.check.inputs == 'true' %}
  {% assign ind = 0 %}
  {% assign sf_show_inputs = false %}
{% else %}
  {% assign ind = 1 %}
{% endif %}

<!---------------- INPUTS ------------------->

{% input custom.some.txt as:text size:mini %}

<!---------------- unexplained ------------------->

{% unexplained ind as:indicator %}

Could this be something that help you forward, for now?
In the mean time, I’ll trigger @Tim as well for this.

Thank you @sven for the quick and clear answer.
We thought about using a boolean input field indeed, together with the recently added possibilities for locking the other input fields and for showing when and by whom the boolean was checked :slight_smile:

Thanks again!

You could discuss it @robin.bailleul wheter or not you want Silverfin to put the template on green automatically or not… It’s great that it can become automatically, but it’s also a better option to visually check everything before it becomes green :face_with_monocle:

I guess it depends on the kind of template you use. I’ll await feedback from Tim for this

1 Like