Found while implementing #653.
ExpensesPage.tsx:486 filters with one <input type="month">:
<input type="month" value={month} max={today.slice(0, 7)} …
Every sibling list screen — Feed, Water, History, Reports — filters with a from/to date pair. #653 wrapped the month picker in the new bounded .toolbar alongside the others, which is the right minimal move for that slice, but it leaves Expenses the only screen where the question you can ask of the data has a different shape from everywhere else.
(The other two type="date" inputs on that page, at lines 564 and 644, are entry-form fields for recording an expense, not filters. They are not part of this.)
The actual question
Is the month granularity deliberate? There is a real argument for it — expenses are reconciled monthly, invoices and utility bills land monthly, and a month picker is one control instead of two. If so, this issue closes as won't-fix with that reasoning recorded, and the inconsistency becomes a documented choice rather than an oversight.
If it is not deliberate, the fix is a from/to pair matching the siblings, and:
- Reports summarises expenses over its own from/to range, so the two screens currently answer different questions about the same data — a user reconciling one against the other has to translate between them.
- The API side needs checking: does the expenses list endpoint take a range, or only a month?
docs/images/reports.png shows the money section aggregating expenses over a date range, which is the shape the list screen does not offer.
Either outcome is fine; what is not fine is that nobody has decided. Filed so the decision gets made and recorded rather than inherited.
Related: #653.
Found while implementing #653.
ExpensesPage.tsx:486filters with one<input type="month">:Every sibling list screen — Feed, Water, History, Reports — filters with a from/to date pair. #653 wrapped the month picker in the new bounded
.toolbaralongside the others, which is the right minimal move for that slice, but it leaves Expenses the only screen where the question you can ask of the data has a different shape from everywhere else.(The other two
type="date"inputs on that page, at lines 564 and 644, are entry-form fields for recording an expense, not filters. They are not part of this.)The actual question
Is the month granularity deliberate? There is a real argument for it — expenses are reconciled monthly, invoices and utility bills land monthly, and a month picker is one control instead of two. If so, this issue closes as won't-fix with that reasoning recorded, and the inconsistency becomes a documented choice rather than an oversight.
If it is not deliberate, the fix is a from/to pair matching the siblings, and:
docs/images/reports.pngshows the money section aggregating expenses over a date range, which is the shape the list screen does not offer.Either outcome is fine; what is not fine is that nobody has decided. Filed so the decision gets made and recorded rather than inherited.
Related: #653.