Weekly Challenges

alexnajm

Done

JBevan89

I did it without a macro, with the use of the multi-row formula tool.

A great challenge, as could be very useful in the real world.

With the answer, the two rows do have transactions after the date that the amount returned to it's original account ID. However, because we are looking at whole amounts instead of decimals there is a good probability of this. And we know that these are the fraudulent transaction because it has moved accounts at least three times and returned to the original account id.

I did it without a macro, with the use of the multi-row formula tool.A great challenge, as could be very useful in the real world.With the answer, the two rows do have transactions after the date that the amount returned to it's original account ID. However, because we are looking at whole amounts instead of decimals there is a good probability of this. And we know that these are the fraudulent transaction because it has moved accounts at least three times and returned to the original account id.

lwolfie

Nice challenge now that I've got the iterative macro.

Stosh

Cool challenge, I have really been enjoying the challenges involving iterative macros.

Spoiler

The outer workflow requires that we create 2 fields on input 1, namely Hands Changed which is a count of if the receiver is the sender (should be 1 for each row), and original sender, so that the sender in transaction 1 is saved.

Spoiler

t
The macro keeps looking to make chains where the receiver on one end of a transaction matches a sender on another, both in account_ID and amount. Once a chain involves 3 hands changed or more and the receiver is the original sender, the chain is sent out of the loop

tThe macro keeps looking to make chains where the receiver on one end of a transaction matches a sender on another, both in account_ID and amount. Once a chain involves 3 hands changed or more and the receiver is the original sender, the chain is sent out of the loop