Fix - Search - When plenty of expenses are created already, haven't created expenses message shown

[FitseTLT]

Details

This pr change the No expense create yet message displayed in empty search view for expenses type of search to be displayed only when there are not transactions created yet. I haven't used queryJSON to determine when to display it because when user change the status to any other value than all without any filter and the result is empty, we can't know the result is empty due to no expense created yet or no expenses in that status

Fixed Issues

$ #51168
PROPOSAL: #51168 (comment)

Tests

1. Log in account which have expenses created already
2. Tap search at bottom
3. Note in expenses section, lots of expenses created are displayed
4. Tap on search icon on top
5. Search any random text that will result in empty result
6. Note the default Nothing to show message is displayed (not haven't created yet any expenses message)

• 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

• 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 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 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(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 the PR modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label 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

2024-11-05.19-43-43.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

aw.mp4

iOS: Native

i.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

iw.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

w.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

d.mp4

[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]

@shawnborton Do we want similar behavior for the trip?

@FitseTLT Is the implementation will be different for the trip case?

[FitseTLT]

@shawnborton Do we want similar behavior for the trip?

@FitseTLT Is the implementation will be different for the trip case?

I think the Trip message is more generic, it doesn't mention the user hasn't created a trip yet, so we can leave it as it is.

[FitseTLT]

@shawnborton WDYT about the above comments. Looks like you missed this convo.

[shawnborton]

Ah apologies. Yeah I agree, let's leave the Trips empty state as-is.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/52059/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/52059/index.html
Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/52059/NewExpensify.dmg	https://52059.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[mollfpr]

@FitseTLT Could you help resolve the conflict? Thank you!

[FitseTLT]

Good to go @mollfpr

[shawnborton]

So far this looks pretty good to me.

If you are on a brand new account but don't have any invoices, we use "Nothing to show" instead of "You haven't created an invoice yet" for the copy. I think we might want to update that to match what we do for expenses. Thoughts?

[mollfpr]

If you are on a brand new account but don't have any invoices, we use "Nothing to show" instead of "You haven't created an invoice yet" for the copy. I think we might want to update that to match what we do for expenses. Thoughts?

I agree with this because invoices are part of the expense. Just want to clarify what we should show when the invoice is empty but the expense is not and vice versa.

[shawnborton]

My thinking is that if you have never sent or received an invoice, we'd show the "You haven't created any invoices yet" text.

[FitseTLT]

How do you like this?

2024-11-13.01-19-30.mp4

[shawnborton]

Looks good! Can we force a line break before the word invoices so we don't have just yet hanging out on its own line?

[FitseTLT]

Done!

[FitseTLT]

What do you think about the translation?
You haven't created any invoices yet
Aún no has creado ninguna factura

Use the green button below to send an invoice or take a tour of Expensify to learn more.
Utilice el botón verde a continuación para enviar una factura o realice un recorrido por Expensify para obtener más información.

[shawnborton]

The translations seem good to me, but we'll want to follow our standard process there for making sure they get checked by our team.

[FitseTLT]

asked on slack

[mollfpr]

@FitseTLT It's not reproduced in the main. I think it's because the message already hasn't created expense.

[FitseTLT]

@mollfpr I cannot reproduce it on this branch too BTW

2024-11-19.20-14-18.mp4

[mollfpr]

@FitseTLT Could you try with search nonexisting expense or random text and press cancel again?

[FitseTLT]

@mollfpr Yes I was able to reproduce it and also tried to debug. The problem is when we press the clear button onyx is returning empty data briefly and because at that time there is no filter applied (as the clear button is to clear all filters) we show no expense yet create message. It's an onyx problem that we ought to live with for the moment, as also mention here

App/src/components/Search/index.tsx

Lines 188 to 189 in 14ca237

	// There's a race condition in Onyx which makes it return data from the previous Search, so in addition to checking that the data is loaded
	// we also need to check that the searchResults matches the type and status of the current search

The only option we have to solve this is to revert back to depending on transaction length and whenever there is no transaction we will show the no expense create yet message. BTW that was my initial implementation I only changed it after @shawnborton wanted to apply the no invoices created yet message for invoices. Because we won't be able to check if the user hasn't created expenses or invoices distinctively as transactions are created if the user creates either an expense or invoice. So now if we depend on transactions length we only display the no invoices or no expenses created message yet if the user hasn't created both expense and invoices (has no transaction created).
WDYT

[FitseTLT]

@shawnborton We have faced an Android specific problem related caused by onyx internal bug here. So now the only solution we have got will enforce us to not be able to distinctively tell if there are no invoices or no expenses.
To summarise:
We can have a separate no invoices created yet and no expenses create yet messages but we will only display it if the user hasn't created a transaction yet. That means, if a user creates his first expense we will also stop showing the not yet created message for invoice and vice versa. Are u ok with that?

[shawnborton]

Hmm can we have an engineer comment on that? I am not sure what to make of that as a designer :) But ideally we should be able to fix this and make it work as expected on all platforms.

[shawnborton]

cc @luacmartins in case you have any thoughts on this one.

[luacmartins]

The solution in this PR seems like a workaround to me and wouldn't work 100% of the time, since we're just relying on the presence of a filter. I think we should instead send a flag from the backend hasExpenses or hasInvoices and use that to show the correct modal. What do you think of that solution @FitseTLT @mollfpr ?

[FitseTLT]

The solution in this PR seems like a workaround to me and wouldn't work 100% of the time, since we're just relying on the presence of a filter. I think we should instead send a flag from the backend hasExpenses or hasInvoices and use that to show the correct modal. What do you think of that solution @FitseTLT @mollfpr ?

Wow This is what we need @luacmartins I am only opting to FE workaround assuming there wouldn't be a Bandwidth for an engineer. If that can be done, its perfect! Can you do it?

[luacmartins]

Yea, I can work on it next week

[dangrous]

How are we looking here? @luacmartins do you think you'll have time to knock out that backend fix?

[luacmartins]

Backend PR in review

[FitseTLT]

@mollfpr The android bug is solved Pls proceed with the review.

2024-12-05.21-48-39.mp4

[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 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

Has expenses

No expenses EN

No expenses ES

Android: mWeb Chrome

Has expenses

No expenses EN

No expenses ES

iOS: Native

Has expenses

No expenses EN

No expenses ES

iOS: mWeb Safari

Has expenses

No expenses EN

No expenses ES

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Has expenses

No expenses EN

No expenses ES

MacOS: Desktop

Has expenses

No expenses EN

No expenses ES

[mollfpr]

LGTM 🚀

I suggest we also include a test case for an account no expenses created to verify the new copy specified for falsy hasResults.

[luacmartins]

LGTM

[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.

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.0.73-0 🚀

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

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.0.73-8 🚀

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