fix: a 'new comment' when opening the one expense report for the first time

[nkdengineer]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #42472
PROPOSAL: #42472 (comment)

Tests

1. Submit a expense report with one expense as an employee
2. Sign in as a approver of the expense report (shouldn't be signed in before so that you don't have the expense report or transaction thread locally)
3. Throttle network connection to slow 3G, so that OpenReport takes a little bit to return
4. Click on the expense report to view the details
5. Verify that: Should not see a green New line like a comment

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

1. Submit a expense report with one expense as an employee
2. Sign in as a approver of the expense report (shouldn't be signed in before so that you don't have the expense report or transaction thread locally)
3. Throttle network connection to slow 3G, so that OpenReport takes a little bit to return
4. Click on the expense report to view the details
5. Verify that: Should not see a green New line like a comment

• 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 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 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-mweb.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-mweb.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

[melvin-bot]

@mollfpr 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]

[mollfpr]

Still working on the testing on all platforms. Also, comparing to the staging where I can find the easiest step test case.

[nkdengineer]

@mollfpr any update here?

[mollfpr]

Still working on the testing, but I'll finish it EOD.

[mollfpr]

@nkdengineer I think we're missing the expected result here.

Currently, in staging, we have one money request preview at least when it's open offline as expected on the PR #36657.

Here's the result from this PR. There's no money request preview when it's only one expense.

---

The new comment mark is still appearing when more than one expense is submitted.

[nkdengineer]

Currently, in staging, we have one money request preview at least when it's open offline as expected on the PR #36657.

@mollfpr Can you share the full step for this bug, here is my result when I test in this PR.

Screen.Recording.2024-06-19.at.21.09.33.mov

The new comment mark is still appearing when more than one expense is submitted.

Please share the full steps to reproduce this bug, I also can't reproduce this.

[mollfpr]

@nkdengineer The step is same with the issue.

1. Submit a expense report with one expense as an employee
2. Sign in as a approver of the expense report (shouldn't be signed in before so that you don't have the expense report or transaction thread locally)
3. Throttle network connection to slow 3G, so that OpenReport takes a little bit to return
4. Click on the expense report to view the details

The easiest way to repro the issue is, to switch offline before opening the money request and make sure you haven't open the money request report before.

[nkdengineer]

The easiest way to repro the issue is, to switch offline before opening the money request and make sure you haven't open the money request report before.

@mollfpr

Here is the result when I test on the latest main (the result is the same on staging).

Screen.Recording.2024-06-20.at.11.25.28.mov

Here is the result when I test on this PR

Screen.Recording.2024-06-20.at.11.27.19.mov

[mollfpr]

@nkdengineer why the result on staging different with the issue?

Also, you should be sign-in as approver after the employee submit the expense, exactly the same with the video in the issue.

[nkdengineer]

Also, you should be sign-in as approver after the employee submit the expense, exactly the same with the video in the issue.

I signed-in as approver in the video.

[nkdengineer]

why the result on staging different with the issue?

@mollfpr It comes from BE. Now on staging when we login as approver, BE returns the created action of transaction thread report and only return the iou action of expense report. So if we open the iou report, the ReportActionsUtils.getCombinedReportActions will filter out the created action of transaction thread report and iou action of expense report and then the empty view appears.

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

Line 160 in 7561439

() => ReportActionsUtils.getCombinedReportActions(allReportActions, transactionThreadReportActions),

With this PR, we will use allReportActions of expense report to get the reportActionsToDisplay and it will generate a created action in offline and then the combine report will appear as expected.

[mollfpr]

I see it now. The behavior seems to change on the staging and my latest test doesn't repro the issue I mention before. Thanks @nkdengineer

[mollfpr]

The test and changes look good to me! We just need to resolve the conflict and re-run the test.

Also, for the test step, I think we can update it too:

Pre-requisite, 2 accounts one of them is the employee and approver.

1. Sign in as an employee
2. Submit an expense request to the workspace
3. Sign in as the approver
4. Go offline
5. Open the employee report that request the expense
6. Click on the expense
7. Verify that it showing the detail transaction report

[mollfpr]

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

43531.Android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

43531.mWeb-Chrome.mp4

iOS: Native

43531.iOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

43531.mWeb-Safari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

43531.Web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

43531.Desktop.mp4

[mollfpr]

LGTM!

[srikarparsi]

Hey @nkdengineer, looks like there's conflicts now. Please ping me once you get to them and I can review

[srikarparsi]

Didn't mean to approve

[nkdengineer]

@srikarparsi I resolved the conflict. Please help to check again.

[srikarparsi]

Lint looks like it's failing now @nkdengineer

[nkdengineer]

@srikarparsi It's fixed now.

[srikarparsi]

looks good to me, thanks for the changes

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.0.3-7 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.0.5-13 🚀

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