Fix inconsistency in dismissing report details RHP when deleting expense with comments by bernhardoj · Pull Request #44777 · Expensify/App

bernhardoj · 2024-07-03T15:49:23Z

Details

When deleting expenses with comments, the details page is closed if we delete a one-transaction report, but not closed if we delete from the transaction thread.

Fixed Issues

$ #44336
PROPOSAL: #44336 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Submit an expense to a user with no unsettled expense
Open the one-transaction report
Add a comment
Press the header
Choose "Delete expense" and confirm
Verify the details page is closed
Submit at least 2 expenses to a user
Open one of the expense transaction thread
Repeat step 3-6

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mp4

android.2.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.mweb.1.mp4

android.mweb.2.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

ios.2.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.1.mp4

ios.2.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.1.mp4

web.2.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mp4

desktop.2.mp4

…-expense

melvin-bot · 2024-07-03T15:49:28Z

@rojiphil 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]

bernhardoj · 2024-07-03T16:20:02Z

Closing the modal when the expense is deleted is being handled in #44537

rojiphil · 2024-07-04T09:15:32Z

src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

                    onCancel={() => setIsDeleteModalVisible(false)}
-                    onModalHide={() => ReportUtils.navigateBackAfterDeleteTransaction(navigateBackToAfterDelete.current)}
+                    onModalHide={() => {
+                        if (isTransactionDeleted.current && !navigateBackToAfterDelete.current) {


I am not sure why we need to introduce isTransactionDeleted.current. Wouldn't this work with just the support of navigateBackToAfterDelete.current? Or is there a use case which will fail if we don't use isTransactionDeleted.current?

Wouldn't this work with just the support of navigateBackToAfterDelete.current?

Sorry, I don't quite understand this. Do you mean to just check if (!navigateBackToAfterDelete.current) {?

Wouldn't this work with just the support of navigateBackToAfterDelete.current?

Sorry, I don't quite understand this. Do you mean to just check if (!navigateBackToAfterDelete.current) {?

Yes. That's correct. Looks like I needed to make this a little more clear in communication. I am curious to know a use case that would fail if we just check if (!navigateBackToAfterDelete.current) {.

It will close the page when we close the modal without deleting the transaction (for example pressing the backdrop/overlay).

It will close the page when we close the modal without deleting the transaction (for example pressing the backdrop/overlay).

Ah! Ok. That makes sense. Since the purpose of isTransactionDeleted is not very obvious due to the presence of navigateBackToAfterDelete, can you please add relevant comments to the code to reflect the purpose of isTransactionDeleted? I think this will help someone who looks at this code later.

…-expense

rojiphil · 2024-07-13T03:20:54Z

Thanks @bernhardoj for the changes. We have an additional lint issue to address related to early return.

bernhardoj · 2024-07-13T03:34:59Z

Fixed lint.

rojiphil · 2024-07-13T10:53:35Z

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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

44777-web-safari-001.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

44777-desktop-001.mp4

Android: Native

44777-android-native-001.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

44777-mweb-chrome-001.mp4

iOS: Native

44777-ios-native-001.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

44777-mweb-safari-001.mp4

rojiphil

Thanks @bernhardoj. Code LGTM. And works well too.
@jasperhuangg All yours for review

OSBotify · 2024-07-15T16:46:37Z

✋ 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 · 2024-07-15T21:05:02Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.0.7-3 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-15T22:13:46Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.0.7-4 🚀

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

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

OSBotify · 2024-07-17T00:20:19Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.0.7-8 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-18T13:50:32Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.8-6 🚀

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

bernhardoj added 3 commits July 3, 2024 23:10

fix inconsistency behavior when deleting expense

5f6cae1

Merge branch 'main' into fix/44336-inconsistency-behavior-when-delete…

55504f0

…-expense

dismiss the modal after deleting transaction

c3da03e

bernhardoj requested a review from a team as a code owner July 3, 2024 15:49

melvin-bot bot requested review from rojiphil and removed request for a team July 3, 2024 15:49

add missing deps

aac8461

prettier

7999cf5

rojiphil reviewed Jul 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

bernhardoj added 3 commits July 10, 2024 11:53

Merge branch 'main' into fix/44336-inconsistency-behavior-when-delete…

8bc9c1d

…-expense

Merge branch 'main' into fix/44336-inconsistency-behavior-when-delete…

c5c0799

…-expense

add comment and restructure code to make it easier to read

089c0fa

lint

90fe533

rojiphil approved these changes Jul 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from jasperhuangg July 13, 2024 10:56

jasperhuangg approved these changes Jul 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

jasperhuangg merged commit 757bfb9 into Expensify:main Jul 15, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-07-15 #45421

Closed

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jul 17, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [$250] Expense - Inconsistency in dismissing report details RHP when deleting expense with comments #44336

Closed

6 tasks

Conversation

bernhardoj commented Jul 3, 2024 • 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 Jul 3, 2024

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jul 3, 2024

Uh oh!

rojiphil Jul 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Jul 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rojiphil Jul 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Jul 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rojiphil Jul 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Jul 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jul 13, 2024

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Jul 13, 2024

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jul 13, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 17, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 18, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

bernhardoj commented Jul 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading