Fix distance amount changes after submitting track distance expense with description by narefyev91 · Pull Request #55063 · Expensify/App

narefyev91 · 2025-01-10T10:14:10Z

Explanation of Change

Implement required changes from BE request: we need to pass both waypoints and customUnitRateID for CategorizeTrackedExpense and ShareTrackedExpense API calls

Fixed Issues

$ #51417
PROPOSAL: #51417 (comment)

Tests

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to self DM
Click + > Track expense > Distance
Enter waypoints > Next
On confirmation page, click Description
Enter a description and save it (important)
Take note of the distance
Click Track expense
Click Categorize it from the whisper
Select workspace, then category and submit it
Go to transaction thread
Verify that the distance in the transaction thread will not change after submitting track distance expense with description

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Nothing changed in offline mode

QA Steps

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to self DM
Click + > Track expense > Distance
Enter waypoints > Next
On confirmation page, click Description
Enter a description and save it (important)
Take note of the distance
Click Track expense
Click Categorize it from the whisper
Select workspace, then category and submit it
Go to transaction thread
Verify that the distance in the transaction thread will not change after submitting track distance expense with description

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-web.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-web.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

…ith description

melvin-bot · 2025-01-10T10:14:16Z

@dukenv0307 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]

dukenv0307 · 2025-01-13T05:00:11Z

@narefyev91 I can't submit the track distance expense

Screen.Recording.2025-01-13.at.11.53.08.mov

dukenv0307 · 2025-01-13T05:00:23Z

Did you face this issue?

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

narefyev91 · 2025-01-13T09:06:19Z

#51417

Yeah - seen the same problem. Will ask BE engineer what's happened. Probably we do not need to pass customUnitRateID. If i remove it - and just pass waypoints - expense is submitted successfully and current issue is fixed

narefyev91 · 2025-01-21T14:01:53Z

@dukenv0307 we get clarification here #51417 (comment). I made changes and double checked that it's working now

# Conflicts: # src/libs/API/parameters/ShareTrackedExpenseParams.ts # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

dukenv0307 · 2025-01-22T08:10:05Z

on it now

dukenv0307 · 2025-01-22T08:23:03Z

@narefyev91 Bug:

The distance and rate change after submitting track expense

Screen.Recording.2025-01-22.at.15.18.06.mov

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

narefyev91 · 2025-01-22T08:52:39Z

@narefyev91 Bug:

The distance and rate change after submitting track expense

Screen.Recording.2025-01-22.at.15.18.06.mov

Yeah seeing the same issue.. Generally my workspace does not have enabled Distance Rate feature
When we try to change rate during categorising - i just see default rate which is not the same (in expense 0.3 euro/km):

That's why i think after submit categorised expense - BE automatically switch to default one. @rlinoz could you please check here as well. Is it intentional?

narefyev91 · 2025-01-23T14:46:50Z

@rlinoz friendly bump on this one

rlinoz · 2025-01-23T15:29:23Z

Sorry, I believe it is intentional, since the rate of the policy is not the same as the original one, I will check out the code either today or tomorrow

# Conflicts: # src/libs/API/parameters/CategorizeTrackedExpenseParams.ts # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

rlinoz · 2025-01-24T17:34:26Z

So yeah, because we are sending the milage rate as undefined, as we should, the backend will apply the default rate for the policy.

So I think we could update the Categorize panel to use the default rate for the policy already, so the user will already know how this will look like.

narefyev91 · 2025-01-27T09:16:12Z

So yeah, because we are sending the milage rate as undefined, as we should, the backend will apply the default rate for the policy.

So I think we could update the Categorize panel to use the default rate for the policy already, so the user will already know how this will look like.

Generally i think we are doing everything right here - if user does not have correct rate - BE will just pick default one.
Not sure if we need to update anything on FE side? Thoughts @dukenv0307 @rlinoz ?

rlinoz · 2025-01-27T13:16:57Z

Im good with that, and we can always improve if needed later

narefyev91 · 2025-01-28T08:19:46Z

@dukenv0307 could you please continue review

dukenv0307 · 2025-01-28T16:32:32Z

@narefyev91 I'm on the holiday, I'll complete the review in 1-2 days. Sorry for this delay

dukenv0307 · 2025-01-29T13:07:52Z

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.2025-01-29.at.20.04.19.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-01-29.at.19.57.20.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-01-29.at.19.59.43.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-01-29.at.19.56.04.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-01-29.at.19.52.32.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-01-29.at.20.07.12.mov

dukenv0307

LGTM

rlinoz · 2025-01-30T19:56:05Z

Will finish review tomorrow

narefyev91 · 2025-01-31T10:30:07Z

@dukenv0307 @rlinoz i create a new PR #56146 - to resolve issue with main (which we get yesterday) - i will close this one - and let's continue with new one

Fix distance amount changes after submitting track distance expense w…

0ed2d81

…ith description

narefyev91 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 10, 2025 10:14

melvin-bot bot requested review from dukenv0307 and removed request for a team January 10, 2025 10:14

narefyev91 added 2 commits January 13, 2025 10:06

Merge branch 'refs/heads/main' into expense-fix-for-track-value

1e2f37f

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Merge branch 'refs/heads/main' into expense-fix-for-track-value

d596bdb

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

narefyev91 mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-02-13] [$250] Track - Distance amount changes after submitting track distance expense with description #51417

Closed

8 tasks

narefyev91 added 2 commits January 21, 2025 15:30

Merge branch 'refs/heads/main' into expense-fix-for-track-value

0dcfde4

prevent to send mock id for customUnitRateID

1ca4e2d

narefyev91 added 3 commits January 22, 2025 10:02

Merge branch 'refs/heads/main' into expense-fix-for-track-value

cc8010a

# Conflicts: # src/libs/API/parameters/ShareTrackedExpenseParams.ts # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

resolve conflicts

85ed380

fix errors

96dc1a2

narefyev91 added 2 commits January 22, 2025 10:28

Merge branch 'refs/heads/main' into expense-fix-for-track-value

f126e28

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

fix ts

5421fd1

narefyev91 added 2 commits January 24, 2025 16:54

Merge branch 'refs/heads/main' into expense-fix-for-track-value

c636e67

# Conflicts: # src/libs/API/parameters/CategorizeTrackedExpenseParams.ts # src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

fix ts

5f4e09a

dukenv0307 approved these changes Jan 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from rlinoz January 29, 2025 13:08

narefyev91 closed this Jan 31, 2025

narefyev91 deleted the expense-fix-for-track-value branch January 31, 2025 10:30

Conversation

narefyev91 commented Jan 10, 2025

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Jan 10, 2025

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Jan 13, 2025

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Jan 13, 2025

Uh oh!

narefyev91 commented Jan 13, 2025

Uh oh!

narefyev91 commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Jan 22, 2025

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Jan 22, 2025

Uh oh!

narefyev91 commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

narefyev91 commented Jan 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rlinoz commented Jan 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rlinoz commented Jan 24, 2025

Uh oh!

narefyev91 commented Jan 27, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rlinoz commented Jan 27, 2025

Uh oh!

narefyev91 commented Jan 28, 2025

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Jan 28, 2025

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Jan 29, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rlinoz commented Jan 30, 2025

Uh oh!

narefyev91 commented Jan 31, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

narefyev91 commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

narefyev91 commented Jan 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading