49954 approval workflow editing by huult · Pull Request #54178 · Expensify/App

huult · 2024-12-16T06:54:10Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #49954
PROPOSAL: #49954 (comment)

Tests

Same QA step

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Open the Expensify app.
Create a new workspace.
Add members.
Enable workflow and add an approval workflow.
Assign one member as a submitter and the other as an approver , or create the workflow as shown in the 6 cases below.
Go to members and remove the approver from the workspace.
Verify the 6 cases below.

Case 1:

Workflow Setup:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approver (SubmitsTo): approverA

Action:

Remove approverA from Workflow 2.

Expected Result:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner

Case 2:

Workflow Setup:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): approverA
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approver (SubmitsTo): approverB

Action:

Remove approverB from Workflow 2.

Expected Result:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): approverA
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner

Case 3:

Workflow Setup:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): approverA
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner

Action:

Remove approverA from Workflow 1.

Expected Result:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner

Case 4:

Workflow Setup:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approvers:
  - approverA (SubmitsTo)
  - approverB (ForwardsTo)
  - approverC (ForwardsTo)

Action:

Remove approverC from Workflow 2.

Expected Result:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approvers:
  - approverA (SubmitsTo)
  - approverB (ForwardsTo)
  - Workspace Owner (ForwardsTo)

Case 5:

Workflow Setup:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approvers:
  - approverA (SubmitsTo)
  - approverB (ForwardsTo)
  - approverC (ForwardsTo)
  - approverD (ForwardsTo)

Action:

Remove approverB from Workflow 2.

Expected Result:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approvers:
  - approverA (SubmitsTo)
  - Workspace Owner (ForwardsTo)

Case 6:

Workflow Setup:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approvers:
  - approverA (SubmitsTo)
  - approverB (ForwardsTo)

Action:

Remove approverB from Workflow 2
Remove approverA from Workflow 2.

Expected Result:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-12-16.at.14.56.33.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

720.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-12-16.at.15.20.03.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-12-16.at.15.27.11.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-12-16.at.14.30.20.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-12-16.at.14.44.49.mp4

…flow-editing

melvin-bot · 2024-12-16T06:54:15Z

@getusha 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]

…flow-editing

getusha · 2024-12-27T11:13:32Z

@huult we've got a conflict 🙏

getusha · 2024-12-27T11:15:48Z

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

android-49954-compressed.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

111screen-recording-2025-01-14-at-45115-in-the-afternoon_BRUBKIDN.mp4

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

screen-recording-2025-01-15-at-20157-in-the-afternoon-ir8jv47y_2UosYyz4.mp4

Case 6

Screen.Recording.2025-01-15.at.2.07.13.in.the.afternoon.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

screen-recording-2025-01-06-at-103316-at-night_dLwRON9q.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-49954-compressed.mp4

…flow-editing

huult · 2024-12-27T15:15:13Z

@getusha I’ve resolved the conflict. Can you check it again?

getusha · 2025-01-06T19:45:17Z

@huult now i give it a second look Case 5 expected result seems a bit off to me.

I think it makes sense for the expected result be:

Workflow 1
Expenses from: Everyone
Approver (SubmitsTo): workspace owner
Workflow 2
Expenses from: memberA
Approver (SubmitsTo): approverA
Approver (ForwardsTo): approverC
Approver (ForwardsTo): approverD
if there are other approvers forwardsTo instead of replacing them with the workspace owner. lmk if i am missing something

cc @trjExpensify

trjExpensify · 2025-01-06T21:27:34Z

I think it's correct. Here are the statements for reference:

If you remove a member from the workspace and that removed member was the submitsTo for someone, we replace the current submitsTo (the removed approver) with the defaultApprover (which is defaulted to the workspace owner, but can be changed).
If you remove a member from the workspace and that removed member was the forwardsTo for someone, we replace the current forwardsTo (the removed approver) with the defaultApprover (which is defaulted to the workspace owner, but can be changed).

So using the "Case 5" example provided from the OP whereby approverB is removed from the workspace:

Case 5:

Workflow Setup:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approvers:
  - approverA (SubmitsTo)
  - workspace Owner (ForwardsTo) <--- replaced approverB as the forwardTo of approverA, as per statement 2 above.
  - approverC (ForwardsTo) <--- no longer a forwardTo because they were the forwardsTo of approverB who has been removed from the workspace.
  - approverD (ForwardsTo) <--- no longer in this approval workflow because approverC isn't.

So yeah, I think the expected results below is correct. 👍 Happy for a second opinion though, @JmillsExpensify if you want to take a look. :)

Expected Result:

Workflow 1:
- Expenses from: Everyone
- Approver (SubmitsTo): Workspace Owner
Workflow 2:
- Expenses from: memberA
- Approvers:
  - approverA (SubmitsTo)
  - Workspace Owner (ForwardsTo)

huult · 2025-01-07T02:53:47Z

@getusha s per the information from @trjExpensify , case 5 is still correct and does not require any updates.

JmillsExpensify · 2025-01-07T11:45:16Z

Confirming that the logic @trjExpensify described above is correct.

…flow-editing

getusha · 2025-01-15T12:21:15Z

let's remove step 2 from QA steps @huult

huult · 2025-01-15T12:24:50Z

@getusha it's done

getusha · 2025-01-15T12:34:23Z

The primary workflow appears as if it was removed, when removing an approver from workflow 2 when offline, I am able to reproduce it on staging as well. looks like related (we should handle the offline behavior for each case), we could probably handle this as a follow up.

Screen.Recording.2025-01-15.at.3.30.09.in.the.afternoon.mov

…flow-editing

getusha · 2025-02-09T09:27:56Z

@huult checks are failing, could you have a look? I've completed the checklist a while ago.

huult · 2025-02-10T14:57:43Z

I will check it soon

…flow-editing

getusha

lgtm & tests well!

Gonals · 2025-02-17T12:28:46Z

@huult, seems like we have some conflicts

huult · 2025-02-17T12:30:29Z

@Gonals I'm checking

…flow-editing

huult · 2025-02-17T12:33:10Z

@Gonals it's done

huult · 2025-02-17T12:40:06Z

@Gonals The PR is ready for merge

OSBotify · 2025-02-17T12:58:59Z

✋ 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 · 2025-02-18T06:29:54Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Gonals in version: 9.1.0-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-02-19T03:19:52Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.1.0-2 🚀

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

shubham1206agra · 2025-03-29T14:09:28Z

src/libs/WorkflowUtils.ts

        }

-        return (a.approvers.at(0)?.displayName ?? '-1').localeCompare(b.approvers.at(0)?.displayName ?? '-1');
+        return (a.approvers.at(0)?.displayName ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID).toString().localeCompare((b.approvers.at(0)?.displayName ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID).toString());


I am pretty sure this is written wrong. @getusha Can you get this corrected?

I can spin up a quick PR but curious, is there any regression?

linhvovan29546 · 2025-12-16T09:57:13Z

src/pages/workspace/WorkspaceMembersPage.tsx

+
+        if (hasApprovers) {
+            const ownerEmail = ownerDetails.login;
+            accountIDsToRemove.forEach((accountID) => {


When removing members, if the selected member has an approver, then the current code calls update/remove for every member in the list. This is unnecessary and causes the issue #74728. We should only perform the update/remove action for the approver #75646.

huult added 8 commits December 14, 2024 01:24

update approver remove

b79a1f7

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

8927c7c

…flow-editing

update utils func

a554fb0

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

b98fe65

…flow-editing

Update workflow for removing a member

c9ec972

Remove member if not an approver

22d979e

update logic to remove workflow

27862f1

Update case remove approval workflow

44d7ea1

huult requested a review from a team as a code owner December 16, 2024 06:54

melvin-bot bot requested review from getusha and removed request for a team December 16, 2024 06:54

huult added 4 commits December 16, 2024 14:01

add useMemo into owner details

1ab0c73

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

a795b6b

…flow-editing

add unit test for updateWorkflowDataOnApproverRemoval

806869b

remove check defaultHasOwner

c444d48

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

16b58f6

…flow-editing

fix eslint

08d6f46

getusha mentioned this pull request Jan 1, 2025

[HOLD for #54178] [$250] Expense - On changing 1st approver, 2nd approver is not greyed out&error for not added approvers #54524

Closed

8 tasks

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

676ce9d

…flow-editing

huult added 4 commits February 4, 2025 11:27

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

99f3ec4

…flow-editing

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

c629035

…flow-editing

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

23bd5c4

…flow-editing

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

f830c03

…flow-editing

huult added 2 commits February 11, 2025 12:22

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

7b316a3

…flow-editing

fix eslint

b740dd6

getusha approved these changes Feb 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Gonals February 16, 2025 11:40

Gonals previously approved these changes Feb 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

Gonals assigned huult Feb 17, 2025

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into 49954-approval-work…

9612808

…flow-editing

huult dismissed Gonals’s stale review via 9612808 February 17, 2025 12:31

Gonals approved these changes Feb 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

Gonals merged commit 8aead3f into Expensify:main Feb 17, 2025
17 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 18, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-02-18 #56992

Closed

27 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-02-26] [$250] Workflow - Added approval workflow doesn't respond to clicks for editing #49954

Closed

6 tasks

shubham1206agra reviewed Mar 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

linhvovan29546 reviewed Dec 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

cretadn22 mentioned this pull request Dec 22, 2025

[$250] Workflows - Owner becomes first and second approver after removing second approver #74319

Open

8 tasks

Gonals mentioned this pull request Feb 17, 2026

[$250] Workspace - Admin becomes approver when dismiss error message for deleting approver #75020

Open

8 tasks

blazejkustra mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2026

[$250] [BATCH 1] Migrate ConfirmModals & ReanimatedModals #83061

Open

Conversation

huult commented Dec 16, 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

Case 1:

Workflow Setup:

Action:

Expected Result:

Case 2:

Workflow Setup:

Action:

Expected Result:

Case 3:

Workflow Setup:

Action:

Expected Result:

Case 4:

Workflow Setup:

Action:

Expected Result:

Case 5:

Workflow Setup:

Action:

Expected Result:

Case 6:

Workflow Setup:

Action:

Expected Result:

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 16, 2024

Uh oh!

getusha commented Dec 27, 2024

Uh oh!

getusha commented Dec 27, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

huult commented Dec 27, 2024

Uh oh!

getusha commented Jan 6, 2025

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Jan 6, 2025

Case 5:

Workflow Setup:

Expected Result:

Uh oh!

huult commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

getusha commented Jan 15, 2025

Uh oh!

huult commented Jan 15, 2025

Uh oh!

getusha commented Jan 15, 2025

Uh oh!

getusha commented Feb 9, 2025

Uh oh!

huult commented Feb 10, 2025

Uh oh!

getusha left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Gonals commented Feb 17, 2025

Uh oh!

huult commented Feb 17, 2025

Uh oh!

huult commented Feb 17, 2025

Uh oh!

huult commented Feb 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 17, 2025

huult commented Dec 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

getusha commented Dec 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading