Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add checks for editing APPROVED reports #33633

Merged
merged 36 commits into from
Jan 5, 2024
Merged

Conversation

youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor

@youssef-lr youssef-lr commented Dec 26, 2023

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #29914
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

IOUs (P2P requests)

  1. As User A, request money from User B.
  2. Make sure you're able to edit its all details as User A.
  3. Log in as User B, make sure you can't edit its details.
  4. Settle the request elsewhere as User B.
  5. Log in as User A, make sure you can't edit the request now that it's been settled.

Expense reports (request made in a workspace)

  1. Create a workspace as the Admin and invite User A.
  2. Log in as User A and request money from the workspace chat using the 'Scan' tab.
  3. Make sure you can edit all the details, and go ahead and edit all of them.
  4. Log in as the Admin, make sure you can edit all the details of the request, except the Receipt.
  5. Settle the request. Make sure you cannot edit the Amount/Currency, Merchant, Date, and Receipt.
  6. Log in as User A, make sure you can't edit the request anymore.

Expense reports - Collect policy

We will need three accounts here, an admin, the approver, and the submitter.

  1. As the submitter, create a request in the workspace chat using 'Scan' and submit it.
  2. Still as the submitter, make sure you can edit all the request details while it's processing, and go ahead and edit all of them
  3. Log in as the approver, make sure you can edit all the details except the receipt.
  4. Approve the request, make sure you cannot edit the Amount/Currency, Merchant, Date, and Receipt.
  5. Log in as the admin, verify the same as Step 4.
  6. Pay the request as the admin, repeat verifications from Step 4.
  7. Log in as the submitter now, make sure you can't edit any details from the request.

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS: Desktop
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
    • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

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

@youssef-lr youssef-lr self-assigned this Dec 26, 2023
@youssef-lr youssef-lr requested a review from a team as a code owner December 26, 2023 22:31
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from mananjadhav and removed request for a team December 26, 2023 22:31
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 26, 2023

@mananjadhav Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mananjadhav can you please give me three brand new emails so I can set you up in a Collect test policy, something like:

manan+submitter, manan+approver, manan+admin.

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Friendly bump @mananjadhav, this issue is tied to our roadmap, if we can treat it with urgency it'd be great 🙏

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

Ohh I missed this. I can take a look today.

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

@youssef-lr While I start with the review, can you fix the Typescript error? and work on the author checklist?

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mananjadhav I'm on it, but you can test everything meanwhile, it shouldn't be a blocker

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

bump on this please

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

I started and I'll take 2-3 hours.

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm honestly not sure why TypeScript is showing that error, the same line is used here as well...do you have any clues?

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

I am still away from keyboard and I am not sure if I can get to it for next few hours. I've asked to reassign if someone can get it earlier.

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm honestly not sure why TypeScript is showing that error, the same line is used here as well...do you have any clues?

I am also not sure, but I checked the other method. When I hover over reportAction, I see the type as ReportActionBase & OriginalMessageIOU. This is despite reportAction being defined as OnyxEntry<ReportAction>. I didn't get time to further investigate. Sorry.

return true;
}

const reportID = reportAction?.originalMessage?.IOUReportID ?? 0;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

At the other two places, where we are using this reportAction?.originalMessage?.IOUReportID reportAction is narrowed to CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU. If we narrow it down here as well typescript will stop complaining.

Suggested change
const reportID = reportAction?.originalMessage?.IOUReportID ?? 0;
const reportID = reportAction?.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU ? reportAction?.originalMessage?.IOUReportID : 0;

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great catch, thanks! I'm going to cast instead because we know for sure the type of the action here

@c3024
Copy link
Contributor

c3024 commented Dec 29, 2023

In production, once the request is settled, the fields are not pressable at all for the requestor and there are no chevrons.

Screenshot 2023-12-29 at 10 49 56 PM
With this PR, these fields are pressable and there are chevrons but nothing happens on press.

Screenshot 2023-12-29 at 10 50 03 PM
I think the production design is the correct design?

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like a bug in my PR, will look into it.

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not able to reproduce it @c3024, I think just navigate away and back from the report and they should get disabled, this is an issue with Pusher updates I think

Screenshot 2023-12-29 at 18 37 39

@c3024
Copy link
Contributor

c3024 commented Dec 29, 2023

Yes, refreshing the page fixes it. useMemo is the issue. The settled status green checkmark appears fine even without refreshing or navigating to another page and returning so I don't think it is due to the Pusher update.

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

hmm, I will look into. Wouldn't Pusher update the dependencies of useMemo?

@c3024
Copy link
Contributor

c3024 commented Dec 29, 2023

I think it should but I just checked with removing useMemo in all canEditX fields and it worked fine.

@youssef-lr youssef-lr force-pushed the youssef_edit_approveed_reports branch from f66717a to ef32e99 Compare January 4, 2024 22:53
@youssef-lr youssef-lr force-pushed the youssef_edit_approveed_reports branch from ef32e99 to 7de81d4 Compare January 4, 2024 22:58
mountiny
mountiny previously approved these changes Jan 5, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you!


// A flag for verifying that the current report is a sub-report of a workspace chat
const isPolicyExpenseChat = useMemo(() => ReportUtils.isPolicyExpenseChat(ReportUtils.getRootParentReport(report)), [report]);
// if the policy of the report is either Collect or Control, then this report must be tied to workspace chat
const isPolicyExpenseChat = ReportUtils.isGroupPolicy(report);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mountiny woops this doesn't take into account Free policies, I'll revert this back to testing the policy is not personal

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you also rename it to isPaidGroupPolicy?

And create a new one name isGroupPolicy checking for free too? it can be done in a follow up too

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah that sounds good

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done, though I just found out we have the same method in PolicyUtils

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we're creating a lot of redundant helper methods we should probably some day clean things up :D

function isDraftExpenseReport(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {
return isExpenseReport(report) && report?.stateNum === CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.OPEN && report?.statusNum === CONST.REPORT.STATUS.OPEN;
function isDraftExpenseReport(report: OnyxEntry<Report> | EmptyObject): boolean {
return report?.stateNum === CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.OPEN && report?.statusNum === CONST.REPORT.STATUS.OPEN;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please bring this back? I think that there is code which relies on the check for expense report, afaik for you changes it will work too, only expense reports can be in open state so we should keep it in

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

woops sorry it was a mistake

Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@youssef-lr youssef-lr merged commit e8ec48b into main Jan 5, 2024
@youssef-lr youssef-lr deleted the youssef_edit_approveed_reports branch January 5, 2024 17:56
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot added the Emergency label Jan 5, 2024
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jan 5, 2024

@youssef-lr looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tests passed

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Jan 5, 2024

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Jan 9, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/youssef-lr in version: 1.4.23-0 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.4.23-4 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 failure ❌
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants