[HOLD for payment 2024-03-14] [Collect approvers] [$500] Offline Pay of an expense will apply even if the submitter edits an expense amount

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.4.41-1
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @garrettmknight
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1707832645778869

Action Performed:

1. User A invites User B to Free workspace
2. User B submits an expense
3. User A goes offline
4. User A taps ‘Pay’ on the original expense
5. User B edits the expense amount OR adds an additional expense while User A is offline
6. User A comes back online

Expected Result:

Payment/Approval is stopped and the admin/approver is notified of the updated amount

Actual Result:

The updated expense amount is paid.

Workaround:

unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01678bf0efdcb7e4a2
• Upwork Job ID: 1757514507892195328
• Last Price Increase: 2024-02-13

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01678bf0efdcb7e4a2

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @mananjadhav (External)

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @puneetlath (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[puneetlath]

Asked for clarification here: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1707941200321529?thread_ts=1707832645.778869&cid=C049HHMV9SM

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @mananjadhav is eligible for the Internal assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[jjcoffee]

Is it likely that #36983 will be fixed here too? Sounds like a similar issue.

[puneetlath]

@Gonals do you know the answer to that ^?

[Gonals]

#36983

Yep. this should fix both. In fact, I'm going to close that one as a duplicate

[trjExpensify]

What's the next steps here?

[mananjadhav]

I've done the C+ review and testing, looking for the internal engineer feedback/merge.

[trjExpensify]

Cool, @Gonals looks like we're ready to rock here!

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.48-0 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Pass displayed amount to the backend when paying a money request #36904

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-03-14. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @mananjadhav requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@mananjadhav] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@mananjadhav] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@mananjadhav] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@mananjadhav] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@mananjadhav] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@puneetlath] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[puneetlath]

@mananjadhav friendly reminder about the checklist so that we can pay tomorrow.

[puneetlath]

@mananjadhav bump!

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Reviewer: @mananjadhav owed $500 via NewDot

BugZero Checklist (@puneetlath)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1757514507892195328/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[mananjadhav]

I'll work on the checklist today.

[mananjadhav]

I tried finding the offending PR but couldn't find one. We added another property in the optimistic data, and I am not sure at what point we should've included this along with Math.abs.

But I do think we should add a regression test for this one.

Regression test for this one:

1. User A invites User B to Free workspace
2. User B submits an expense
3. User A goes offline
4. User A taps ‘Pay’ on the original expense
5. User B edits the expense amount OR adds an additional expense while User A is offline
6. User A comes back online
7. Confirm the money request is not paid and User A sees an error message: The requested amount has changed.

This will serve the linked duplicate issue as well.

@puneetlath Can you confirm the payout summary posted by the bot?

[puneetlath]

Issue for regression test: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/379640

I am confirming that the payment summary here is accurate. @mananjadhav please request on NewDot.

[JmillsExpensify]

$500 approved for @mananjadhav based on summary.