# amendTransaction

**URL:** https://discuss.prosemirror.net/t/amendtransaction/1532
**Category:** Uncategorized
**Created:** [September 24, 2018, 1:32pm UTC](https://discuss.prosemirror.net/t/amendtransaction/1532 "2018-09-24T13:32:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![marijn](https://discuss.prosemirror.net/user_avatar/discuss.prosemirror.net/marijn/32/15_2.png) [@marijn](https://discuss.prosemirror.net/u/marijn)
#### Post date: [September 24, 2018, 1:48pm UTC](https://discuss.prosemirror.net/t/amendtransaction/1532/2 "2018-09-24T13:48:59Z")

</div>

I guess we could have formulated `filterTransaction` as `replaceTransaction` instead, with the filter case just being a replacement with no transaction. If you want to start formulating an RFC on this (a `replaceTransaction` feature that can return an array of transactions, with `filterTransaction` reformulated to just be a backwards-compatibility shim on top of that) that might be interesting.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.prosemirror.net/t/amendtransaction/1532)._