PostedTransactions: support "WIRE" transaction type#22
PostedTransactions: support "WIRE" transaction type#22edwagner merged 2 commits intoedwagner:mainfrom
Conversation
| "INTADJUST": "INT", | ||
| "TRANSFER": "XFER", | ||
| "VISA": "POS", | ||
| "WIRE": "XFER", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I picked "XFER" (similar to "TRANSFER").
Full list of options: https://github.com/edwagner/ofxstatement/blob/c1f060042a0b7ae228d422d53cbac309bdf64147/src/ofxstatement/statement.py#L12-L30
Other candidates:
- CREDIT / DEBIT for incoming / outgoing wires
- OTHER
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My only concern with XFER is that wires are often payments which feels different than a transfer between accounts in the same ledger. However I'm certainly no accountant. Personally I like the idea of DEBIT for "Outgoing Wire." Does that seem reasonable to you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK. I can use DEBIT for "Outgoing Wire".
I will also use CREDIT for "Incoming Wire" (although I don't have an actual sample for incoming wire to test this). Are you OK with pre-emptively and speculatively using CREDIT in this way (and blindly manufacturing a test case for this)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's a reasonable speculation, and then we can change it (or add another case) if we discover that it's a different string. Thanks!
The
"WIRE"transaction type is a result of issuing an outbound wire from the checking account.Similarly to the
"ACH"transaction type, map to the"CREDIT"or"DEBIT"transaction type based on whether the transaction is a deposit or withdrawal.Mapping to
"CREDIT"in this PR is done pre-emptively and speculatively; real-world test data is not available to verify/validate this mapping.