https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463854
--- Comment #5 from Antoine T ---
Please note that there is an error in the test scenario I have written in
description. I said it is an OFX file while describing a QIF file. The test
scenario of the issue is actually with a QIF file, because there is n
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463854
Antoine T changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463854
--- Comment #3 from Antoine T ---
I am closing this ticket as I didn't see I have opened a duplicate ticket
#351535 in 2015 (!).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463854
--- Comment #2 from Antoine T ---
(In reply to Jack from comment #1)
> I believe in master branch, the original field from which Payee was detected
> is included in it's entirety in the memo. I don't know if there is any
> chance that this will be back
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463854
--- Comment #1 from Jack ---
I believe in master branch, the original field from which Payee was detected is
included in it's entirety in the memo. I don't know if there is any chance
that this will be back-ported to 5.1 or not. What date does the tra
