QT/sure
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/we-promise/sure.git synced 2026-09-03 13:51:29 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix(enable-banking): use real merchant instead of POS terminal line for name (#2968)

Browse Source 
* fix(enable-banking): use real merchant instead of POS terminal line for name

Some ASPSPs (e.g. BankDirekt/Raiffeisen in Austria) return
remittance_information as a multi-element array where the first line is a
generic card terminal descriptor (\"POS   45,13 AT  D6   31.07. 10:27\")
and a later line holds the real merchant. EnableBankingEntry::Processor
always used the first array element, so transaction names showed the
terminal string instead of the merchant.

primary_remittance_information now skips lines that look like a technical
terminal booking (POS/ATM + amount, or a trailing date+time stamp) and
prefers the first descriptive line, falling back to the original element
when nothing better is available. It also strips known small-merchant
payment-processor prefixes (SumUp, Square, iZettle, PayPal) from the
selected line.

Fixes #2935

Disclosure: this fix was written by Claude Code, verified against the
reporter's real (decrypted) Enable Banking payload and against test-stack
Rails test / RuboCop / Brakeman runs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(enable-banking): require both technical-line signals together

Address CodeRabbit/Codex review feedback on #2968: the POS/ATM+amount
prefix and the trailing date+time suffix were OR'd, so either alone
could misclassify a legitimate line as technical. A line embedding the
merchant right after the amount (e.g. "POS 45,13 BILLA DANKT ...") or
a legitimate descriptor that happens to end in a timestamp (e.g.
"Invoice paid 31.07. 10:27") would have been wrongly skipped.

Both signals are now required together in a single anchored pattern,
matching every real technical line observed in production while no
longer misclassifying either of the scenarios above.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(enable-banking): tighten date-stamp regex and clean up the merchant line

Addresses two review threads on this PR:

1. jjmata (PR review): technical_remittance_line?'s date-stamp check required
   exactly 2-digit day/month (\d{2}[./]\d{2}), so an un-padded date ("1.07."
   instead of "01.07.") wasn't recognized as technical and the line would
   resurface as the transaction name -- reproducing the original #2935 bug for
   that date shape. Now accepts 1-2 digits for both.

2. john-frandsen (issue #2935 comment): suggested cleaning up the merchant line
   further (e.g. "BILLA DANKT 0007114 SIEGENDORF 7011" -> "Billa"). Checked
   point 1 (structured remittance fields) against Enable Banking's own API
   docs -- no such field exists there, not applicable. Points 2/3/5 already
   match current behavior. Point 4 (loyalty-marker cleanup) implemented as two
   layers:
   - Primary: match the line against merchants the family already knows
     (Family#known_merchant_names) -- self-maintaining, no pattern-guessing,
     and now also assigns the transaction's merchant when matched (previously
     out of scope for blank-counterparty EB transactions). Case-insensitive,
     regex-escaped, longest-match-wins, with a minimum length guard against
     spurious short-name matches.
   - Fallback (no known merchant yet): remove only the "DANKT"/"DANKE"
     thank-you marker word itself, not a directional truncation -- the marker
     can precede or follow the merchant name depending on phrasing ("X DANKT"
     vs. "DANKE ... bei X"), so truncating at it risked deleting the real
     merchant name in one of the two phrasings.

Verified against the full test suite, RuboCop, and Brakeman on a test-stack
Rails instance (0 RuboCop offenses, 0 Brakeman warnings; full-suite failures
present on that instance are pre-existing/environmental and unrelated to
these files).

Disclosure: this fix (investigation, implementation, and tests) was written
by Claude Code.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(enable-banking): address CodeRabbit/Codex review on merchant-line cleanup

Follow-up to 5e39ee6b, in response to automated review on that push:

- CodeRabbit (functional correctness): remittance cleanup was order-dependent
  -- strip_payment_processor_prefix ran before strip_loyalty_marker, so a
  marker preceding the (start-anchored) processor-prefix pattern would leave
  the prefix unstripped. Swapped the order (marker removal first) so the
  result no longer depends on which came first in the input. Also switched
  strip_loyalty_marker from sub to gsub so it removes every marker
  occurrence, not just the first.

- CodeRabbit + Codex (performance, independently flagged by both): Family#
  known_merchant_names was re-queried for every transaction in a sync batch,
  since EnableBankingAccount::Transactions::Processor creates a new
  EnableBankingEntry::Processor per row. Added an optional
  known_merchant_names: keyword to the processor's constructor (same pattern
  already used for the shared import_adapter) and compute it once per batch
  in the caller instead of once per row.

- CodeRabbit (test quality, nitpick): the known_merchant_names test only used
  distinct names, so `assert_equal names.uniq, names` couldn't actually catch
  a deduplication bug, and never exercised the documented
  recently-unlinked-merchants exclusion. Rewrote it to create a genuine
  duplicate name across two different merchant records and to assign-then-
  unlink a merchant, asserting it's excluded from known_merchant_names while
  still present in available_merchants (the deliberate difference between the
  two methods).

Re-verified test/models/enable_banking_entry/processor_test.rb +
test/models/family_test.rb (67 runs, 170 assertions, 0 failures) and RuboCop
on all changed files on a test-stack instance.

Disclosure: this fix was written by Claude Code.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(enable-banking): drop DANKT/DANKE loyalty-marker stripping

Country-specific fallback heuristic flagged in review (only recognized
German "thank you" markers). The core fix (skipping the technical POS/
ATM line and matching against the family's known merchant list) is
already market-independent; this text heuristic only helped cosmetically
for the first transaction from a not-yet-known German/Austrian merchant.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
GFR
2026-08-22 23:52:35 +02:00
committed by GitHub
co-authored by Claude Sonnet 5
parent 0d0003b032
commit 0252787dc0
5 changed files with 354 additions and 6 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
test/models/enable_banking_entry/processor_test.rb
+231 -1
View File
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
require "test_helper"
require "ostruct"
class EnableBankingEntry::ProcessorTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
setup do
@@ -208,6 +209,130 @@ class EnableBankingEntry::ProcessorTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
assert_includes entry.notes, "Détail comptable interne"
end
test "imports transaction with real merchant name instead of generic POS terminal line (issue #2935)" do
tx = {
entry_reference: "ref_pos_2935",
transaction_id: nil,
booking_date: Date.current.to_s,
transaction_amount: { amount: "45.13", currency: "EUR" },
creditor: { name: "" },
debtor: nil,
bank_transaction_code: nil,
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
remittance_information: [
"POS 45,13 AT D6 31.07. 10:27",
"BILLA DANKT 0007114"
],
status: "BOOK"
}
EnableBankingEntry::Processor.new(tx, enable_banking_account: @enable_banking_account).process
entry = @account.entries.find_by!(external_id: "enable_banking_ref_pos_2935")
assert_equal "BILLA DANKT 0007114", entry.name
assert_includes entry.notes, "POS 45,13 AT D6 31.07. 10:27"
end
test "uses the family's known merchant name instead of the raw remittance line when it matches, and assigns the merchant" do
@family.merchants.create!(name: "Billa")
tx = {
entry_reference: "ref_known_merchant",
transaction_id: nil,
booking_date: Date.current.to_s,
transaction_amount: { amount: "45.13", currency: "EUR" },
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
remittance_information: [
"POS 45,13 AT D6 31.07. 10:27",
"BILLA DANKT 0007114"
],
status: "BOOK"
}
EnableBankingEntry::Processor.new(tx, enable_banking_account: @enable_banking_account).process
entry = @account.entries.find_by!(external_id: "enable_banking_ref_known_merchant")
assert_equal "Billa", entry.name
assert_equal "Billa", entry.transaction.merchant&.name
end
test "matches known merchants regardless of retailer chain" do
%w[Bipa Spar Hofer Lidl Penny].each do |chain_name|
@family.merchants.create!(name: chain_name)
end
[
[ "bipa", "BIPA DANKT 0001234", "Bipa" ],
[ "spar", "SPAR DANKT 0005678", "Spar" ],
[ "hofer", "HOFER DANKT 0009876", "Hofer" ],
[ "lidl", "LIDL DANKT 0004321", "Lidl" ],
[ "penny", "DANKE 0009999 PENNY", "Penny" ]
].each do |ref_suffix, raw_line, expected_name|
tx = {
entry_reference: "ref_known_#{ref_suffix}",
transaction_id: nil,
booking_date: Date.current.to_s,
transaction_amount: { amount: "12.34", currency: "EUR" },
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
remittance_information: [
"POS 12,34 AT D6 01.01. 09:00",
raw_line
],
status: "BOOK"
}
EnableBankingEntry::Processor.new(tx, enable_banking_account: @enable_banking_account).process
entry = @account.entries.find_by!(external_id: "enable_banking_ref_known_#{ref_suffix}")
assert_equal expected_name, entry.name, "expected #{raw_line.inspect} to resolve to #{expected_name.inspect}"
end
end
test "does not match a known merchant name shorter than the minimum match length" do
@family.merchants.create!(name: "IT")
name = build_name_with_family(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [ "NAME IT 1234" ]
)
# No known merchant match attempted ("IT" is below MIN_KNOWN_MERCHANT_MATCH_LENGTH),
# so the line passes through unchanged.
assert_equal "NAME IT 1234", name
end
test "prefers the longest matching known merchant name when multiple match" do
@family.merchants.create!(name: "Billa")
@family.merchants.create!(name: "Billa Corso")
name = build_name_with_family(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [ "Billa Corso 0001234" ]
)
assert_equal "Billa Corso", name
end
test "escapes regex metacharacters in a known merchant name so matching never raises" do
@family.merchants.create!(name: "A+B (Café)")
name = build_name_with_family(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [ "A+B (Café) 0001234" ]
)
assert_equal "A+B (Café)", name
end
test "stores exchange_rate in extra when present" do
tx = {
entry_reference: "ref_fx",
@@ -282,13 +407,24 @@ class EnableBankingEntry::ProcessorTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
end
def build_processor(data)
EnableBankingEntry::Processor.new(data, enable_banking_account: Object.new)
# A minimal stand-in that responds to current_account (real EnableBankingAccount
# always does) so `account`/`known_merchant_names` resolve safely to nil/[] instead
# of raising -- these unit-level tests aren't wired to a real family, so they always
# exercise the "no known merchant" fallback path.
EnableBankingEntry::Processor.new(data, enable_banking_account: OpenStruct.new(current_account: nil))
end
def build_name(data)
build_processor(data).send(:name)
end
# Unlike build_name/build_processor, wires up the real @enable_banking_account
# (and thus the real @family) so known-merchant matching has something to match
# against -- used by tests that create FamilyMerchant records via @family first.
def build_name_with_family(data)
EnableBankingEntry::Processor.new(data, enable_banking_account: @enable_banking_account).send(:name)
end
test "skips technical card counterparty and falls back to remittance_information" do
name = build_name(
credit_debit_indicator: "CRDT",
@@ -431,6 +567,100 @@ class EnableBankingEntry::ProcessorTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
assert_nil processor.send(:merchant)
end
# --- technical remittance line skip (issue #2935) ---
test "skips generic POS terminal line and uses real merchant from remittance_information" do
name = build_name(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [
"POS 45,13 AT D6 31.07. 10:27",
"BILLA DANKT 0007114"
]
)
assert_equal "BILLA DANKT 0007114", name
end
test "skips generic ATM terminal line and uses real merchant from remittance_information" do
name = build_name(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [
"ATM 50,00 AT D6 31.07. 10:27",
"SPARKASSE EISENSTADT 7000"
]
)
assert_equal "SPARKASSE EISENSTADT 7000", name
end
test "does not treat a POS/ATM-prefixed line as technical when it lacks a trailing date+time (merchant embedded in the same line)" do
name = build_name(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [
"POS 45,13 BILLA DANKT 0007114",
"Reference 0394676"
]
)
assert_equal "POS 45,13 BILLA DANKT 0007114", name
end
test "does not treat a legitimate line as technical just because it ends with a date+time stamp" do
name = build_name(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [
"Invoice paid 31.07. 10:27",
"Reference 0394676"
]
)
assert_equal "Invoice paid 31.07. 10:27", name
end
test "strips SumUp payment processor prefix from the merchant line" do
name = build_name(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [
"POS 130,00 AT D6 21.07. 14:20",
"SUMUP *HERR DR. EISENSTADT 7000"
]
)
assert_equal "HERR DR. EISENSTADT 7000", name
end
test "falls back to the technical line when remittance_information has no descriptive line" do
name = build_name(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [ "POS 45,13 AT D6 31.07. 10:27" ]
)
assert_equal "POS 45,13 AT D6 31.07. 10:27", name
end
test "does not treat a merchant-like line starting with POS/ATM as technical" do
name = build_name(
credit_debit_indicator: "DBIT",
creditor: { name: "" },
bank_transaction_code: nil,
remittance_information: [ "POS Café Wien" ]
)
assert_equal "POS Café Wien", name
end
test "converts unix timestamp date using family timezone not UTC" do
# 2025-07-14 23:30:00 UTC == 2025-07-15 01:30:00 CEST
@family.update!(timezone: "Europe/Berlin")