Fix - 1:1 Submit expense - The receiving end of the IOU should not be asked to fill out information if the scan failed #53947

FitseTLT · 2024-12-11T15:07:27Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #51574
PROPOSAL: #51574 (comment)

Tests

Start the Submit expense flow in a 1:1 conversation with a user you have access to
Select the scan option
Upload a picture that will fail the scan process
Wait for the scan to fail
Log in as the other account
Navigate to the IOU that failed the scan
Verify the receiver is not asked to fill out the missing information no RBR is shown
On a workspace set tag as required field and allow approval workflow as the admin as the approver
From an employee side of the workspace create an expense without setting tag field
From an employee side verify that RBR is shown and tag required violation text is shown but no RBR shown from the admin side (b/c the admin cannot edit the request)
Now from the admin side approve the expense
Verify that now the employee (now can't edit the expense) will not see the RBR and violation but the admin can see the RBR

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

Same as above

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-12-11T15:07:33Z

@getusha 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]

FitseTLT · 2024-12-15T16:53:43Z

Bump for a review @getusha

getusha · 2024-12-17T12:56:53Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (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 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
- 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
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.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-12-18.at.6.44.12.in.the.evening.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-12-18.at.6.32.53.in.the.evening.mov

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

getusha · 2024-12-17T16:23:40Z

@FitseTLT noticed a RBR on the report preview. it disappears when you click on it.

1217.mov

FitseTLT · 2024-12-17T21:32:42Z

Yeah @getusha this because the report data will not be available in onyx to determine whether the current user can edit it or not but when you open it the data will be loaded. mountiny agreed to live with this edge case inconsistency here 👍

getusha · 2024-12-18T16:00:57Z

@FitseTLT could you please add a unit test? thanks

FitseTLT · 2024-12-23T22:11:38Z

@FitseTLT could you please add a unit test? thanks

Added

getusha · 2024-12-24T12:42:29Z

@FitseTLT we've got conflicts

mountiny · 2024-12-28T20:29:32Z

@FitseTLT can you please fix the conflicts? Thanks!

FitseTLT · 2024-12-31T12:41:01Z

~~@VickyStash I am confused with the lint errors I am having~~
Sorry tagged you by mistake 🙏

FitseTLT · 2024-12-31T13:04:43Z

Apart from the lint and ts errors coming from main I have fixed all the current pr errors. @getusha

FitseTLT · 2025-01-06T16:14:44Z

@VickyStash @mountiny @getusha I am having confusing unrelated lint/ts errors on files that I haven't changed. Do you have any idea?
For instance, look at the one linked to this line

App/src/pages/AddPersonalBankAccountPage.tsx

Line 59 in 321d478

    
           const onSuccessFallbackRoute = personalBankAccount?.onSuccessFallbackRoute ?? '';

VickyStash · 2025-01-07T09:20:39Z

@VickyStash @mountiny @getusha I am having confusing unrelated lint/ts errors on files that I haven't changed. Do you have any idea?

As I see not the Changed files ESLint check failed for you, but the usual ESLint check/TypeScript Checks. These checks are expected to fail even in the files you didn't change in case of broken typing.

In this case it looks dut to updates in ROUTES.ts file the Route type became too complex union and TS can't process it.

cc @fabioh8010

fabioh8010 · 2025-01-07T12:04:28Z

@VickyStash @mountiny @FitseTLT This is a problem we faced in the past with the Route type, and I previously fixed by simplifying the typings we do in ROUTES.ts here. Given that the app increased its routes since last PR, I created another one to apply the optimisations here.

FitseTLT · 2025-01-07T12:24:40Z

@VickyStash @mountiny @FitseTLT This is a problem we faced in the past with the Route type, and I previously fixed by simplifying the typings we do in ROUTES.ts here. Given that the app increased its routes since last PR, I created another one to apply the optimisations here.

Thx so I think the next step would be to wait for the PR to be merged @fabioh8010, right?

mountiny · 2025-01-07T14:21:28Z

👍

mountiny · 2025-01-12T21:56:11Z

@FitseTLT The PR was merged, can you please sync with main?

FitseTLT · 2025-01-13T13:25:30Z

Conflict resolved @mountiny The only doubt I want you to confirm is whether it is correct to apply the pattern we applied here of hiding violations for the non-editable side for all violations like warning and notice type violations.

mountiny

I am really worried about this many changes 😅 also this might have performance impact if we deciding if to show the RBR in LHN using the new canEditTransaction method

tests/unit/TransactionUtilsTest.ts

mountiny · 2025-01-13T17:39:55Z

src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

+ * because there is no point of showing RBR for the user who cannot edit the request.
+ */
+function shouldShowMissingSmartscanFieldsError(transaction: OnyxInputOrEntry<Transaction>, parentReportAction?: OnyxEntry<ReportAction>): boolean {
+    if (!canEditTransaction(transaction?.transactionID ?? '-1', parentReportAction)) {


should there be default here with the new rules?

What do you mean ?

mountiny · 2025-01-13T17:40:52Z

src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

+ * true because we use this function to show RBR only for the user side who can edit the transaction
+ * but if we can't determine they cannot edit it, we opted to show the RBR instead of hiding it.
+ */
+function canEditTransaction(transactionID: string | undefined, parentReportAction: OnyxEntry<ReportAction>): boolean {


This seems like very heavy function. How often will it be called?

For every transaction on which we are checking the existence of violation

@mountiny really good catch. From what I can see here this can really become a bottleneck for cases like David's. Here's what I'd do:

wait for these changes to get merged (we can't really open up big accounts without this in a diff),

checkout to this PR and load David's Onyx state (attached in the Slack thread) locally (before & after), profile regular workflows and submitting expenses to get a Hermes trace,

assess the impact then and decide on the next steps

src/libs/actions/ReportActions.ts

mountiny · 2025-01-17T14:03:29Z

@FitseTLT Sorry, this change is really substantial so I am discussing with Tom the exact expecte behaviour now that we know the changes you have implemented so far.

I am still worried about the performance - consider that this additional method is called whenever the LHN is rerendered / computed and that happens often. For accounts that have hundreds if not thousands of transactions locally this could have material impact

mountiny · 2025-01-31T16:51:00Z

@FitseTLT sorry for the confusion here, but I think we are going to have to move in a bit different direction here.

the IOUs are not a priority now
This solution is super complex and would almost certainly lead to performance degradation, it does not seem like there is an easy way to achieve this without noticeable performance slowdown

Because of that, let's take a step back and simply take the similar solution you originally proposed, let's update the copy of the error for the person who cannot edit it to say something like: The amount was not set yet

FitseTLT · 2025-01-31T17:01:19Z

Ok great @mountiny I had hated the inconsistency in the first place. I will close this PR and open a new one 👍

FitseTLT added 2 commits December 10, 2024 19:20

implemented hiding RBR when a user cannot edit a transaction

3f70c47

Merge branch 'main' into fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit

ab00a33

FitseTLT requested a review from a team as a code owner December 11, 2024 15:07

melvin-bot bot requested review from getusha and removed request for a team December 11, 2024 15:07

FitseTLT added 2 commits December 15, 2024 19:59

Merge branch 'main' into fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit

df9fee2

minor fix

8e980d6

Added tests

99ef4c1

getusha approved these changes Dec 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from mountiny December 24, 2024 12:42

FitseTLT added 3 commits December 24, 2024 19:21

Merge branch 'main' into fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit

7999453

minor fix

e755386

eslint fix

6569a7d

FitseTLT added 7 commits December 30, 2024 14:56

Merge branch 'main' into fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit

406c4a7

lint fix

a4fe71e

ts fix

6997b5d

lint fix

21c352b

lint fix

9f0eb8e

lint fix

4670a3b

Merge branch 'main' into fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit

0b352f1

FitseTLT closed this Dec 31, 2024

FitseTLT deleted the fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit branch December 31, 2024 12:40

FitseTLT restored the fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit branch December 31, 2024 12:40

FitseTLT reopened this Dec 31, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit

55194d3

Merge branch 'main' into fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit

a34c703

mountiny assigned FitseTLT Jan 6, 2025

Merge branch 'main' into fix-showing-RBR-if-user-cannot-edit

321d478

fabioh8010 mentioned this pull request Jan 7, 2025

[No QA] Reduce string unions in Route type #54871

Merged

50 tasks

FitseTLT added 2 commits January 13, 2025 16:06

resolve conflict

ebc160a

fix test

abad1bb

mountiny reviewed Jan 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

FitseTLT closed this Jan 31, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix - 1:1 Submit expense - The receiving end of the IOU should not be asked to fill out information if the scan failed #53947

Fix - 1:1 Submit expense - The receiving end of the IOU should not be asked to fill out information if the scan failed #53947

FitseTLT commented Dec 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 11, 2024

FitseTLT commented Dec 15, 2024

getusha commented Dec 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

getusha commented Dec 17, 2024

FitseTLT commented Dec 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

getusha commented Dec 18, 2024

FitseTLT commented Dec 23, 2024

getusha commented Dec 24, 2024

mountiny commented Dec 28, 2024

FitseTLT commented Dec 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

FitseTLT commented Dec 31, 2024

FitseTLT commented Jan 6, 2025

VickyStash commented Jan 7, 2025

fabioh8010 commented Jan 7, 2025

FitseTLT commented Jan 7, 2025

mountiny commented Jan 7, 2025

mountiny commented Jan 12, 2025

FitseTLT commented Jan 13, 2025

mountiny left a comment

mountiny Jan 13, 2025

FitseTLT Jan 14, 2025

mountiny Jan 13, 2025

FitseTLT Jan 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

adhorodyski Jan 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Jan 17, 2025

mountiny commented Jan 31, 2025

FitseTLT commented Jan 31, 2025

Fix - 1:1 Submit expense - The receiving end of the IOU should not be asked to fill out information if the scan failed #53947

Fix - 1:1 Submit expense - The receiving end of the IOU should not be asked to fill out information if the scan failed #53947

Conversation

FitseTLT commented Dec 11, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 11, 2024

FitseTLT commented Dec 15, 2024

getusha commented Dec 17, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

getusha commented Dec 17, 2024

FitseTLT commented Dec 17, 2024 • edited Loading

getusha commented Dec 18, 2024

FitseTLT commented Dec 23, 2024

getusha commented Dec 24, 2024

mountiny commented Dec 28, 2024

FitseTLT commented Dec 31, 2024 • edited Loading

FitseTLT commented Dec 31, 2024

FitseTLT commented Jan 6, 2025

VickyStash commented Jan 7, 2025

fabioh8010 commented Jan 7, 2025

FitseTLT commented Jan 7, 2025

mountiny commented Jan 7, 2025

mountiny commented Jan 12, 2025

FitseTLT commented Jan 13, 2025

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny Jan 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

FitseTLT Jan 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny Jan 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

FitseTLT Jan 14, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adhorodyski Jan 21, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny commented Jan 17, 2025

mountiny commented Jan 31, 2025

FitseTLT commented Jan 31, 2025

FitseTLT commented Dec 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading

getusha commented Dec 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

FitseTLT commented Dec 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

FitseTLT commented Dec 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

FitseTLT Jan 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

adhorodyski Jan 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading