fix: IOU - "TBD" is missing in the IOU details of the "Amount" field in offline mode by paultsimura · Pull Request #29892 · Expensify/App

paultsimura · 2023-10-18T17:46:23Z

Details

Display the amount of IOU Reports that consist only of "TBD" distance requests as "TBD".

Fixed Issues

$ #29553
PROPOSAL: #29553 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA.

Offline tests

Same as QA.

QA Steps

Go offline
Click on the FAB button -> 'Request Money' -> 'Distance'
Add a route from point 1 to point 2
Click on the "Next" button
Select a WS that you don't have a pending IOU report with
Complete the request
Navigate to the Workspace Expense Chat

Verify that the IOU Report Preview displays the amount as TBD

Click on the IOU Report

Verify that the total amount is set to TBD
Verify that in the report name, the amount is displayed as TBD

Click on the Distance report

Verify that in the transaction report name, the amount is displayed as TBD

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

chrome.mov

iOS: Native

iOS.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

RPReplay_Final1697649389.MP4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

melvin-bot · 2023-10-18T17:46:29Z

@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]

paultsimura · 2023-10-19T14:17:13Z

@mananjadhav a friendly bump on this PR

mananjadhav · 2023-10-19T14:28:41Z

Will check in a while.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-19T17:17:08Z

@paultsimura I am reviewing the code, and testing it. Can you please help resolving the merge conflicts?

# Conflicts: # src/libs/ReportUtils.js

paultsimura · 2023-10-19T17:43:50Z

Can you please help resolving the merge conflicts?

@mananjadhav done, thanks.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-19T17:43:56Z

Thanks for resolving the conflicts @paultsimura. Currently reviewing this one.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-19T17:55:43Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/ReportPreview.js

    const transactionsWithReceipts = ReportUtils.getTransactionsWithReceipts(props.iouReportID);
    const numberOfScanningReceipts = _.filter(transactionsWithReceipts, (transaction) => TransactionUtils.isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction)).length;
    const hasReceipts = transactionsWithReceipts.length > 0;
+    const distanceRequestTransactions = ReportUtils.getDistanceRequestTransactions(props.iouReportID);


My recommendation could be opinionated, but we're looping through transactions quite a few times.

getTransactionsWithReceipts

getDistanceRequestTransactions

Should we be combining these method? Is the list going to be too long to delay the loop?

The list shouldn't generally exceed 5-10 reports because once the IOU report is settled, it's closed and a new one will be created.

To my mind, creating a separate method that combines both checks is not worth the hustle: it's either creating a new function in ReportUtils that will be used in this only place or fetching all the report's transactions here and placing these custom calculations inside the ReportPreview, which will complicate the already quite cluttered code.

What do you think?

That's true for users, but admins will likely see 10's of IOUs towards the end of the month. Though we probably don't need to improve this until it becomes a problem.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-19T17:56:22Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/ReportPreview.js

    const transactionsWithReceipts = ReportUtils.getTransactionsWithReceipts(props.iouReportID);
    const numberOfScanningReceipts = _.filter(transactionsWithReceipts, (transaction) => TransactionUtils.isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction)).length;
    const hasReceipts = transactionsWithReceipts.length > 0;
+    const distanceRequestTransactions = ReportUtils.getDistanceRequestTransactions(props.iouReportID);


If we still retain two separate calls, why not use ReportUtils.hasOnlyDistanceRequestTransactions ?

I was a bit concerned about checking this value against the report transactions (which is done inside ReportUtils.hasOnlyDistanceRequestTransactions), while all the rest here are compared with numberOfRequests, which is taken from reportPreviewAction.childMoneyRequestCount.

But looks like we are safe to use the ReportUtils.hasOnlyDistanceRequestTransactions here indeed.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-19T17:58:58Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.js

+ * @param {string|null} iouReportID
+ * @returns {[Object]}
+ */
+function getDistanceRequestTransactions(iouReportID) {


I think we don't need this method as we are only calling it once and that too only to check if we have only distance requests here:

const distanceRequestTransactions = ReportUtils.getDistanceRequestTransactions(props.iouReportID); const hasOnlyDistanceRequests = numberOfRequests === _.size(distanceRequestTransactions);

mananjadhav · 2023-10-19T17:59:31Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.js

 * Gets all transactions on an IOU report with a receipt
 *
- * @param {Object|null} iouReportID
+ * @param {string|null} iouReportID


Are we sure we're getting a string here? I thought transactions is an object?

We're not getting – it's the input parameter of the function, iouReportID.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-19T18:02:23Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.js

+ */
+function hasOnlyDistanceRequestTransactions(iouReportID) {
+    const allTransactions = TransactionUtils.getAllReportTransactions(iouReportID);
+    return _.all(allTransactions, (transaction) => TransactionUtils.isDistanceRequest(transaction));


I can't find the link or doc, but I thought we're going to prioritize using the built-in methods over lodash if they exist. We could use

return allTransactions.every(transaction => TransactionUtils.isDistanceRequest(transaction));

@Julesssss Can you confirm this?

As far as I understand, this is more related to TypeScript, as it's more fail-safe. But if you insist, I can change to .every here

I am also not 100% sure on this one.

Then I would like to keep it as is until the file is migrated to TypeScript, just to make it consistent with the rest of the functions

Lets stick with the current solution

mananjadhav

Raised a comment about unwanted method, and one-two nit comments.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-20T08:16:36Z

Changes look fine, starting with the QA and checklist now.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-20T08:39:32Z

@paultsimura @Julesssss I am trying to follow the test steps but I can't request money offline.

web-offline-distance-request.mov

paultsimura · 2023-10-20T08:47:20Z

I am trying to follow the test steps but I can't request money offline.

There was a known bug in Dev: #30022

It's fixed now after I pulled the latest main.

mananjadhav · 2023-10-20T09:28:20Z

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 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
- 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 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.js 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(themeColors.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 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

web-offline-amt-tbd.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

mweb-chrome-offline-amt-tbd.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

mweb-safari-offline-amt-tbd.mov

Desktop

desktop-offline-amt-tbd.mov

iOS

ios-offline-amt-tbd.mov

Android

android-offline-amt-tbd.mov

mananjadhav · 2023-10-20T09:29:05Z

Thanks @paultsimura for addressing the comments. This tests well.

@Julesssss All yours.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed.

OSBotify · 2023-10-20T09:52:12Z

✋ 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 · 2023-10-20T21:37:36Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.3.88-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-10-23T04:49:48Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/chiragsalian in version: 1.3.88-11 🚀

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

Display "TBD" as the 0-value total amount of distance-only IOU Reports

a2e1252

paultsimura requested a review from a team as a code owner October 18, 2023 17:46

melvin-bot bot requested review from mananjadhav and removed request for a team October 18, 2023 17:46

Move hasOnlyDistanceRequestTransactions up for lint

41186b9

paultsimura mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-10-30] [$500] IOU - "TBD" is missing in the IOU details of the "Amount" field in offline mode #29553

Closed

6 tasks

Merge branch 'main' into fix/29553-iou-distance-tbd

4851bcb

# Conflicts: # src/libs/ReportUtils.js

mananjadhav reviewed Oct 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

Remove unnecessary method

55c9366

paultsimura requested a review from mananjadhav October 20, 2023 07:53

Merge branch 'main' into fix/29553-iou-distance-tbd

e012a67

Julesssss assigned paultsimura Oct 20, 2023

Julesssss approved these changes Oct 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

Julesssss merged commit 73733d5 into Expensify:main Oct 20, 2023

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Oct 20, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-10-20 #30108

Closed

trjExpensify mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2023

[C+ Checklist Needs Completion] [$500] Money Request - Deleted IOU in offline mode appears when User switch to online #26511

Closed

6 tasks

Conversation

paultsimura commented Oct 18, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 18, 2023

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Oct 19, 2023

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Oct 19, 2023

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Oct 19, 2023

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Oct 19, 2023

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Oct 19, 2023

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mananjadhav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Oct 20, 2023

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Oct 20, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Oct 20, 2023

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Oct 20, 2023

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Oct 20, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 20, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 20, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 23, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

paultsimura commented Oct 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mananjadhav commented Oct 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading