Fixed negative amount turns to positive amount after sorting duplicates by shubham1206agra · Pull Request #57033 · Expensify/App

shubham1206agra · 2025-02-18T15:18:25Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #55404

Tests

Precondition:

Workspace has per diem rates.
At least one subrate has negative amount.

Open App
Go to workspace chat.
Submit two same per diem rates with a negative amount.
Go to transaction thread of any expense in Step 3.
Click Review duplicates.
Click Keep this one on any expense preview.
Click Confirm.
Verify that the amount remains same.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests

QA Steps

Same as Tests

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-02-18.at.9.43.42.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-02-18.at.10.16.12.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-02-18.at.9.30.04.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-02-18.at.9.21.45.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-02-18.at.9.49.48.PM.mov

melvin-bot · 2025-02-18T15:56:51Z

@ishpaul777 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]

ishpaul777 · 2025-02-18T17:48:24Z

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

Screen.Recording.2025-02-21.at.2.06.05.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-02-21.at.1.40.24.AM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-02-21.at.12.40.42.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-02-21.at.1.37.36.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-02-21.at.12.29.56.AM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-02-21.at.2.09.37.AM.mov

ishpaul777 · 2025-02-20T16:20:58Z

@shubham1206agra can you please merge main

ishpaul777

lgtm!

ishpaul777 · 2025-02-20T20:42:43Z

sorry i forgot to ask, do we need add tests for this ? if no, please comment your reasoning

iwiznia · 2025-02-20T20:47:11Z

src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

 function buildTransactionsMergeParams(reviewDuplicates: OnyxEntry<ReviewDuplicates>, originalTransaction: Partial<Transaction>): TransactionMergeParams {
    return {
-        amount: -getAmount(originalTransaction as OnyxEntry<Transaction>, false),
+        amount: -getAmount(originalTransaction as OnyxEntry<Transaction>, true),


I don't quite get this method:

Why are there 2 params isFromExpenseReport and isFromTrackedExpense that do the same thing?

What does isFromTrackedExpense mean?

Why are we passing a hardcoded true/false here, shouldn't it be looking at what report the transaction is in and pass true/false based on that?

Why are we passing a hardcoded true/false here, shouldn't it be looking at what report the transaction is in and pass true/false based on that?

Since duplicate resolution happens only in expense reports, not IOU reports.

Why are there 2 params isFromExpenseReport and isFromTrackedExpense that do the same thing?

This is not the same. Since we can track expense in workspace too and it uses a different convention than expense report, we use isFromTrackedExpense to force a convention irrespective of where the track expense is present.

Since duplicate resolution happens only in expense reports, not IOU reports.

Not following, is buildTransactionsMergeParams only used for expense reports? And if so, where are we validating that we don't pass an IOU?

This is not the same. Since we can track expense in workspace too and it uses a different convention than expense report, we use isFromTrackedExpense to force a convention irrespective of where the track expense is present.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. They both do exactly the same thing in code. If you pass one or the other to true, the exact same logic applies, so to me one of them should be removed.

If you pass one or the other to true, the exact same logic applies, so to me one of them should be removed.

Nope, one is inverted and works in a different way. We can merge this in future, but we should not do this here.

Not following, is buildTransactionsMergeParams only used for expense reports?

Yes

And if so, where are we validating that we don't pass an IOU?

No need since duplicate violation occurs in expense reports.

Nope, one is inverted

Oh, true! 👨‍🦯

OSBotify · 2025-02-21T21:42:03Z

✋ 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 · 2025-02-21T23:11:20Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/iwiznia in version: 9.1.4-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-02-24T19:42:59Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/chiragsalian in version: 9.1.4-4 🚀

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

shubham1206agra added 2 commits February 18, 2025 20:45

Fixed negative amount turns to positive amount after sorting duplicates

f3a1219

Fix sign of amount

acb1dc1

shubham1206agra marked this pull request as ready for review February 18, 2025 15:56

shubham1206agra requested a review from a team as a code owner February 18, 2025 15:56

melvin-bot bot requested review from ishpaul777 and removed request for a team February 18, 2025 15:56

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into fix-merge-transaction-amount

b658bb4

ishpaul777 approved these changes Feb 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from iwiznia February 20, 2025 20:41

iwiznia reviewed Feb 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

iwiznia approved these changes Feb 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

iwiznia merged commit 4483fe8 into Expensify:main Feb 21, 2025
24 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-02-21 #57263

Closed

29 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-03-03] Per diem - Negative amount turns to positive amount after sorting duplicates #55404

Closed

8 tasks

IuliiaHerets mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2025

[$500] Split - Unable to edit split amount when amount is negative #63311

Open

8 tasks

shubham1206agra deleted the fix-merge-transaction-amount branch January 2, 2026 12:20

Conversation

shubham1206agra commented Feb 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Feb 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Feb 20, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Feb 20, 2025

Uh oh!

iwiznia Feb 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shubham1206agra Feb 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shubham1206agra Feb 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

iwiznia Feb 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shubham1206agra Feb 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shubham1206agra Feb 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

iwiznia Feb 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

shubham1206agra commented Feb 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Feb 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

shubham1206agra Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading