Fix - Update getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage() to accept the transaction as a parameter by FitseTLT · Pull Request #38882 · Expensify/App

FitseTLT · 2024-03-23T19:05:54Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #38355
PROPOSAL: #38355 (comment)

Tests

Note: This is a refactoring pr so what we need to check is that things mentioned below work fine same as current main

Press on the FAB and request money
finish the flow and create a money request
Press on the preview that contains the request
When the iou report opens on the money request action corresponding to the request you createdin (2) select copy to clipboard
Now paste and verify that the money amount and the message is correct

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

nat.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

and.web.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

w.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

d.mp4

melvin-bot · 2024-03-23T19:05:59Z

@hoangzinh 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 · 2024-03-23T19:24:56Z

@hoangzinh @tgolen I am having difficulty coming up with a report action that is displayed with ReportActionItemMessage which utilizes iouMessage we calculate here

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemMessage.tsx

Lines 69 to 70 in 85d761b

    
               iouMessage = ReportUtils.getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage(action, transaction); 
        
           }

All the report actions we calculate the message via the linked transactions are all displayed with MoneyRequestAction

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItem.tsx

Lines 410 to 422 in 85d761b

    
           if ( 
        
               isIOUReport(action) && 
        
               action.originalMessage && 
        
               // For the pay flow, we only want to show MoneyRequestAction when sending money. When paying, we display a regular system message 
        
               (action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.CREATE || 
        
                   action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.SPLIT || 
        
                   action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.TRACK || 
        
                   isSendingMoney) 
        
           ) { 
        
               // There is no single iouReport for bill splits, so only 1:1 requests require an iouReportID 
        
               const iouReportID = action.originalMessage.IOUReportID ? action.originalMessage.IOUReportID.toString() : '0'; 
        
               children = ( 
        
                   <MoneyRequestAction

I feel like may be it an obsolete code but it would be nice if you can give me one instance I can test with. TIA

hoangzinh · 2024-03-25T12:03:38Z

Can you try with paid message?

User A requests money to User B
User B does "pay elsewhere"
Verify it's displaying "paid XXX elsewhere"

FitseTLT · 2024-03-25T12:17:05Z

Can you try with paid message?

User A requests money to User B

User B does "pay elsewhere"

Verify it's displaying "paid XXX elsewhere"

Thx for the help! But sorry if I haven't made it clear, indeed there are instances where getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage is executed like the one you mentioned but it doesn't pass this early return

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 5136 to 5137 in 85d761b

    
               return Localize.translateLocal(translationKey, {amount: formattedAmount, payer: ''}); 
        
           }

It doesn't utilize transaction param which is relevant to this PR here

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 5139 to 5140 in 85d761b

    
           const transactionDetails = getTransactionDetails(!isEmptyObject(transaction) ? transaction : null); 
        
           const formattedAmount = CurrencyUtils.convertToDisplayString(transactionDetails?.amount ?? 0, transactionDetails?.currency);

hoangzinh · 2024-03-25T16:12:01Z

I see, I couldn't find a case to test it either. Let's wait for @tgolen

tgolen · 2024-03-25T17:39:56Z

Yes, I believe I ran into this when I was first looking at the code as well, so thank you for confirming it. I couldn't find anyway of triggering the logic either, but I was fearful there was just something I didn't know or was perhaps overlooking. I think what the safest thing to do would be:

Remove getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage() completely
Replace the spot where it was called in ReportActionItem.tsx with a Log.alert() (I think that's the right method) that will at least log something in our server logs if that path is called by anything (and let's add enough data to the log so we know why the code path was triggered and not caught by the earlier logic in the if statement)
Create a follow-up GH to check for the server logs in 2-4 weeks
If there were no logs triggered, then we do a final cleanup to remove the logic completely
If there were logs triggered, I guess we need to keep digging

It's also possible that when the first step is done, QA will be able to find a regression with it. In that case, it would be a faster way of getting to the final end goal of having this code cleaned up.

What do you think of that plan?

FitseTLT · 2024-03-26T08:15:13Z

Yes, I believe I ran into this when I was first looking at the code as well, so thank you for confirming it. I couldn't find anyway of triggering the logic either, but I was fearful there was just something I didn't know or was perhaps overlooking. I think what the safest thing to do would be:

Remove getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage() completely

Replace the spot where it was called in ReportActionItem.tsx with a Log.alert() (I think that's the right method) that will at least log something in our server logs if that path is called by anything (and let's add enough data to the log so we know why the code path was triggered and not caught by the earlier logic in the if statement)

Create a follow-up GH to check for the server logs in 2-4 weeks

If there were no logs triggered, then we do a final cleanup to remove the logic completely

If there were logs triggered, I guess we need to keep digging

It's also possible that when the first step is done, QA will be able to find a regression with it. In that case, it would be a faster way of getting to the final end goal of having this code cleaned up.

What do you think of that plan?

BTW it is not getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage() call in ReportActionItemMessage that is in doubt here, only the transaction param is what I haven't found to be useful. For instance payed message @hoangzinh mentioned already uses it but couldn't come up with one that uses the transaction param, so I am suspecting transaction prop in ReportActionItemMessage might not be needed. I mean there is no bad logic in the current main; before transaction wasn't a parameter so no need to worry whenever it is need it will be accessed in the function but now that it is a param we have more burden in terms of whether the param is needed in all instances or not; we might need to make it optional and not pass it when we call it from ReportActionItemMessage.

Regarding BE logging you are suggesting why don't we just pass the param from ReportActionItemMessage so that there will be no regression (obviously regression means a penalty for us 😄 ) So we can an extra param like isCalledFromReportAction so inside getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage before the code that we utilize transaction param when isCalledFromReportAction is true we log in the BE and In a follow up PR if there is no log after weeks we can remove the transaction prop and don't pass it from there anymore. WDYT

…to-take-transaction-param

hoangzinh · 2024-03-26T10:26:23Z

In ReportActionItemMessage that is in doubt here, only the transaction param is what I haven't found to be useful

Hold-on @FitseTLT I think it's still useful in case copy-to-clipboard, isn't it?

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.tsx

Lines 366 to 368 in a51e60e

    
           } else if (ReportActionsUtils.isMoneyRequestAction(reportAction)) { 
        
               const displayMessage = ReportUtils.getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage(reportAction); 
        
               Clipboard.setString(displayMessage);

FitseTLT · 2024-03-26T10:34:35Z

Yep @hoangzinh I mentioned it here

getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage() call in ReportActionItemMessage that is in doubt here

hoangzinh · 2024-03-26T12:08:58Z

we might need to make it optional and not pass it when we call it from ReportActionItemMessage.

@FitseTLT Thanks for confirming. Reg. your point, I prefer to split it out instead of making it optional. For example, split those logic intos a function

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 5132 to 5150 in 9dd66cf

    
           // The `REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.PAY` action type is used for both fulfilling existing requests and sending money. To 
        
           // differentiate between these two scenarios, we check if the `originalMessage` contains the `IOUDetails` 
        
           // property. If it does, it indicates that this is a 'Send money' action. 
        
           const {amount, currency} = originalMessage.IOUDetails ?? originalMessage; 
        
           const formattedAmount = CurrencyUtils.convertToDisplayString(Math.abs(amount), currency) ?? ''; 
        
           switch (originalMessage.paymentType) { 
        
               case CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.ELSEWHERE: 
        
                   translationKey = 'iou.paidElsewhereWithAmount'; 
        
                   break; 
        
               case CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.EXPENSIFY: 
        
               case CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.VBBA: 
        
                   translationKey = 'iou.paidWithExpensifyWithAmount'; 
        
                   break; 
        
               default: 
        
                   translationKey = 'iou.payerPaidAmount'; 
        
                   break; 
        
           } 
        
           return Localize.translateLocal(translationKey, {amount: formattedAmount, payer: ''});

Then use it in the ReportActionItemMessage and getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage. But the fact that, we might cause regression bugs for cases that we haven't known yet.

…to-take-transaction-param

FitseTLT · 2024-03-26T12:22:45Z

Nice @hoangzinh But if we are going to utilize BE log then we should separate it after we confirm that transaction is not needed from when we call it from ReportActionItemMessage via the BE Log 👍

tgolen · 2024-03-26T14:46:02Z

OK, I understatnd what you mean about the transaction param now. I misunderstood originally and glad that you found some flows that still hit that logic. It sounds like we are aligned on a path forward and we can utilize the BE log to ensure there are no regressions, then come back later and remove the transaction param.

FitseTLT · 2024-03-26T19:58:38Z

@hoangzinh U can proceed on the review, I have added the server logging code 👍

hoangzinh · 2024-03-27T13:55:44Z

src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemMessage.tsx

+            const originalMessage = action?.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU ? action.originalMessage : null;
+            return `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${originalMessage?.IOUTransactionID ?? 0}`;


Should it be

Suggested change

const originalMessage = action?.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU ? action.originalMessage : null;

return `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${originalMessage?.IOUTransactionID ?? 0}`;

return `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${action?.originalMessage?.IOUTransactionID ?? ''}`;

Yeah I know but it is to avoid TS error; it used in all other places too. I guess it is better than suppressing the ts error

Oh right, then is it possible to reuse ReportActionUtils.getLinkedTransactionID here?

Couldn't that lead us to conflict with the purpose of this pr as the function uses allReportActions to get the action

App/src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts

Line 655 in d93cb32

const reportAction = allReportActions?.[reportID]?.[reportActionID];

Hmm, wish it accepted a reportAction input. The idea here is centralize how we get a transactionID from a reportAction

Hi @FitseTLT I'm thinking should we create another util, getLinkedTransactionIDFromReportAction. In PR checklist, we have a checkbox about DRY code.

…to-take-transaction-param

src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/BaseReportActionContextMenu.tsx

src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemMessage.tsx

src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/BaseReportActionContextMenu.tsx

hoangzinh · 2024-03-29T17:27:58Z

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 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.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(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.
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.2024-03-31.at.09.58.44.android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-03-31.at.10.05.29.android.chrome.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-03-31.at.09.55.23.ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-03-31.at.09.52.09.ios.safari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-03-31.at.09.47.06.web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-03-31.at.09.49.24.desktop.mov

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

…to-take-transaction-param

hoangzinh

LGTM

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Oops, sorry... that should have been a "requested changes" review

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

FitseTLT · 2024-04-03T09:21:44Z

Also logged reportActionID U can proceed @tgolen

OSBotify · 2024-04-03T14:36:14Z

✋ 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 · 2024-04-08T10:55:08Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.4.60-13 🚀

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

FitseTLT added 2 commits March 22, 2024 23:10

applied refactor for report action message and copy to clipboard

55cdc9a

fix performance test

1ff147f

FitseTLT requested a review from a team as a code owner March 23, 2024 19:05

melvin-bot bot requested review from hoangzinh and removed request for a team March 23, 2024 19:05

fix type

85d761b

Merge branch 'main' into fix-update-getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage-…

70bd5a0

…to-take-transaction-param

remove transaction param for test

5770ec3

Merge branch 'main' into fix-update-getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage-…

1aa0618

…to-take-transaction-param

add server logging code

e53277e

hoangzinh reviewed Mar 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

FitseTLT added 2 commits March 28, 2024 20:50

Merge branch 'main' into fix-update-getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage-…

02e058a

…to-take-transaction-param

use getLinkedTransactionID

ad0e1b2

hoangzinh reviewed Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/BaseReportActionContextMenu.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

hoangzinh reviewed Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemMessage.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved

made code DRY

72eb49b

hoangzinh reviewed Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/BaseReportActionContextMenu.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fixed import

1102fd2

FitseTLT requested a review from hoangzinh March 29, 2024 12:05

hoangzinh reviewed Mar 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

FitseTLT added 3 commits April 1, 2024 13:36

passed object of report action

871eca6

Merge branch 'main' into fix-update-getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage-…

65d9221

…to-take-transaction-param

logged originalMessage

3badbd1

FitseTLT requested a review from hoangzinh April 2, 2024 10:00

hoangzinh approved these changes Apr 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from tgolen April 2, 2024 14:08

tgolen previously approved these changes Apr 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

logged only original message type

79d8448

FitseTLT requested a review from tgolen April 2, 2024 15:07

hoangzinh reviewed Apr 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

logged reportActionID

338aeff

tgolen approved these changes Apr 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

tgolen merged commit ff492c4 into Expensify:main Apr 3, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2024

[INCORRECT] (used to be a checklist but was incorrectly triggered) #39573

Closed

44 tasks

mountiny mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-04-04 #39588

Closed

48 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2024

[PAID] [$500] Update getIOUReportActionDisplayMessage() to accept the transaction as a parameter #38355

Closed

		const originalMessage = action?.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU ? action.originalMessage : null;
		return `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${originalMessage?.IOUTransactionID ?? 0}`;

Conversation

FitseTLT commented Mar 23, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 23, 2024

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Mar 23, 2024

Uh oh!

hoangzinh commented Mar 25, 2024

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Mar 25, 2024

Uh oh!

hoangzinh commented Mar 25, 2024

Uh oh!

tgolen commented Mar 25, 2024

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Mar 26, 2024

Uh oh!

hoangzinh commented Mar 26, 2024

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Mar 26, 2024

Uh oh!

hoangzinh commented Mar 26, 2024

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Mar 26, 2024

Uh oh!

tgolen commented Mar 26, 2024

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Mar 26, 2024

Uh oh!

hoangzinh Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FitseTLT Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hoangzinh Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FitseTLT Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hoangzinh Mar 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hoangzinh Mar 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FitseTLT Mar 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

hoangzinh commented Mar 29, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

hoangzinh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented Apr 3, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 3, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 8, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

hoangzinh commented Mar 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading