Fix computing receiver and payer for IOU transaction preview by Kicu · Pull Request #64228 · Expensify/App

Kicu · 2025-06-16T11:16:39Z

This PR fixes messy logic around displaying from (sender) and to (receiver) for IOU transaction previews.

Explanation of Change

we are setting the from and to fields based on the sign (positive/negative) of the transaction amount - this approach was consulted with @mountiny and it's the best we have in the case of opening chat report and looking at a preview
the code to do this was actually already in place, inside getIOUData function, which I renamed to getIOUPayerAndReceiver to make it more clear - this operation happens only for IOU reports
the bug was that we provided the amount after computing it, and running Math.abs over it, so it was always positive, and we always got the same order of from and to so now I'm passing the original amount without abs to make this work
I've found a lot of confusion around function and prop names, so I went and renamed some things to have names closer to what they actually represent in the code

Fixed Issues

$ #62783
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Follow steps from original bug.

Offline tests

QA Steps

Follow steps from original bug.

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

rec-transaction-preview-andr.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

transaction-preview-ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

transaction-preview-web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Kicu · 2025-06-16T11:19:04Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/TransactionPreview/types.ts

-    /** Represents the IOU report entry from Onyx */
-    iouReport: OnyxEntry<Report>;
+    /** Represents the report linked to the transaction */
+    report: OnyxEntry<Report>;


Why I renamed this prop?

The name iouReport suggests that the report that gets passed is of type IOU. That is not true for the previews and was a source of confusion for me.
Both MoneyRequestReportPreview, and it's children TransactionPreview's can be rendered for both IOU and EXPENSE report.

So in reality this variable can be either expenseReport or iouReport. To make it simpler I just used the name report.

I like this change.

Kicu · 2025-06-16T11:20:34Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/TransactionPreview/TransactionPreviewContent.tsx

+
+        // For IOU, we want the unprocessed amount, because it is important whether the amount was positive or negative
+        // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/prefer-nullish-coalescing
+        const transactionRawAmount = (transaction?.modifiedAmount || transaction?.amount) ?? 0;


this is the actual heart of the fix - it will pass the unmodified amount, so we will get the positive or negative number and can properly render the from/to arrow

melvin-bot · 2025-06-17T06:11:59Z

@parasharrajat 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]

parasharrajat · 2025-06-17T11:34:58Z

Testing...

parasharrajat · 2025-06-17T12:31:08Z

Note: This PR does not solve. I have to either open that iou report or refresh the chat to see from, to on each new report.

In Step 6. after submitting expense to User A, the expense preview does not show A > B indicator. It is only displayed after opening the expense report.

parasharrajat · 2025-06-17T12:32:10Z

So I can reliably reproduce step 6. @Kicu. Wanna give it another look?

Kicu · 2025-06-18T08:36:16Z

Ok so the immediate cause of the bug from Step 6

Note that the expense preview is missing A > B indicator

is that there happens a refresh of data which breaks the assumption about positive/negative amounts. My hunch is telling me that this happens after we receive the data from the pusher from backend, but I don't yet know how to investigate what data gets pushed and merged to onyx.
Please see the video below (sorry its a bit long)

I have created an expense from the Pink account (Matt Ti) for 11.00
then I have created an expense from my other account for 123.00
starting from time around 00:45s in the video you can see how the transactions data has both positive values for 1100 and 12300 for both accounts - that is unexpected
this changes on refresh, after refreshing the amounts on the same transactions turn into 12300 and -1100

vid

rec-preview-error.mp4

Now I see 2 ways of moving forward:

I can continue to investigate this as part of this PR or
we treat the refreshing as a separate bug - because it kinda is, then @parasharrajat reviews this focusing only on the direction of the arrows - which this PR fixes

Regardless I will continue to investigate the refresh problem.
CC @mountiny what do you think about this?

mountiny · 2025-06-18T09:13:53Z

I think its because there are pusher updates missing for when the transaction amounts are swapped, seems like that is the case from a quick look at the command

Kicu · 2025-06-18T09:21:15Z

FYI one related piece of info, there was a PR merge not long ago, that explicitly made so we don't display From/To if there is just one transaction created: #60650

IF it's a BE issue maybe we move forward with reviewing the PR ignoring the refresh problem for now @parasharrajat ?
If be pushes correct data then everything should be working I hope.

parasharrajat · 2025-06-18T09:24:13Z

Sure, let me check.

mountiny · 2025-06-18T21:16:28Z

Yep that is a backend issue so lets please wrap this up @parasharrajat thanks!

parasharrajat · 2025-06-18T23:12:13Z

Sure

parasharrajat · 2025-06-18T23:13:07Z

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

🔲 iOS / Safari

19.06.2025_07.05.17_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Desktop

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

19.06.2025_06.59.57_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / Chrome

19.06.2025_07.03.33_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / native

parasharrajat · 2025-06-19T02:07:47Z

IMO, the arrow direction for split expenses is wrong. In this example, I did split both ways so the overall report total is 0. they canceled out each other. But both split expenses are showing same direction from user A => B. while one of them was created from b => A.

A split $12 with B where A's share is $5. (IMO, should be A => B as B ows 7)
B split $12 with A where B's share is $5. (IMO, should be B => A as A ows 7)

Can you please check that? @Kicu cc: @mountiny

mountiny · 2025-06-19T15:34:10Z

@parasharrajat is that even after you sign out and sign back in? Are the amounts actually both same sign in onyx?

parasharrajat · 2025-06-20T15:04:08Z

@mountiny No amount signs are different on both actions. The first one is 700 and the second one is -700. But value is the same 700.

This is what I see inside the report. Both transactions show $7, which is very confusing.

parasharrajat · 2025-06-24T13:00:36Z

Yes, On it in 20 mins.

parasharrajat · 2025-06-24T14:09:26Z

Here are the steps:

From user A, create split expense for $12.
Give user A share of $5 and submit.
From user B, create a split expense of $12.
Give user B, share of $5 and submit.

Now observe, the report preview. Both transitions show A -> B on both accounts. @Kicu

Kicu · 2025-06-24T15:03:50Z

Alright thanks @parasharrajat I can reproduce that.

When we're doing "split" just like you suggested indeed something weird happens with the code. It feels like there is a different dedicated path in the code for this, because my functions are never called with the -700 and 700.

@mountiny do you perhaps remember anything special related to handling transactions and amounts when the expense is done via Split action?
I need to investigate further.

Kicu · 2025-06-24T15:14:55Z

@mountiny
the code that changes how this behaves for split seems to be related to this:
#63092

When we're rendering Preview for split, we actually pass down not the specific transactions which have - and + signs, but the transaction for the whole split - hence we're actually getting 1200 both times.
See here: https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/src/components/ReportActionItem/TransactionPreview/index.tsx#L81-L87

I can try to work over this, but I'm not sure what is happening around split transactions and what was the intention 🤔

Kicu · 2025-06-25T11:33:53Z

@parasharrajat Please re-review again. I have fixed the specific case for split request - which was quite confusing :/

Here's the video with my test:

rec-splits-preview.mp4

parasharrajat · 2025-06-25T11:39:00Z

On, it. There are checks failures.

Kicu · 2025-06-25T12:05:13Z

@parasharrajat all checks are passing 👍

parasharrajat · 2025-06-25T12:48:00Z

There is still someting wrong. the A -> B changes values after I create another split transactions.

Create a $12 split transaction from account B, where B's share is 5.
Create a $12 split transaction from account A where A's share is 5. Check the transactions From -> TO directions on the preview.
Create another a $12 split transaction from account A where A's share is 5. Now check the from -> To previews.

Check from 0.55 to 1.20 sec.

25.06.2025_18.04.56_REC.mp4

Kicu · 2025-06-25T15:09:21Z

OK, so a few things here:

@parasharrajat I can reproduce, thanks for the example.
In a video below you can clearly see that the same transactions (Im rendering their ids in UI) change the amounts between renders 😢 so @mountiny I'm not sure if we can rely on them or not.

The whole thing starts to work once you enter the report and get all the data from backend.
(important part starts around 1:00)

rec-splits-bug.mp4

CC @mountiny @parasharrajat
I feel a bit stuck on this one.
I think at this point we have 2 ways to move forward:

We agree that all the problems with arrow order come from wrong data in onyx, Rajat just reviews the code inside, and we merge and make a separate issue for fixing transactions data in onyx
we HOLD this one until we sort out transactions in onyx and live updates

mountiny · 2025-06-25T17:50:45Z

@parasharrajat We can fix the BE now and see if this will be fixed then

parasharrajat · 2025-06-26T01:53:27Z

So, what do you suggest? Should we go ahead and complete the review here then we can test the split issue when the BE change is made? OR should we hold here until the backend change is done? @mountiny

mountiny · 2025-06-26T21:18:10Z

@parasharrajat you can go ahead and complete the review here

jnowakow · 2025-06-27T11:43:58Z

Hello @parasharrajat, I've talked about the issue with @Kicu and tested it against those changes and @mountiny's BE changes. I think everything works fine so we can go forward with this PR:

Mateusz+Vit.mov

parasharrajat · 2025-06-27T12:28:14Z

In Step 6. after submitting expense to User A, the expense preview will show A > B indicator immediately.

@Kicu This is failing on iOS.

27.06.2025_17.56.44_REC.mp4

Kicu · 2025-06-27T13:39:18Z

@parasharrajat We have discussed multiple times in this thread that anything related to "immediately" displaying is not working because of wrong data from backend.

Here: #64228 (comment)
then I responded here: #64228 (comment)
Also vit said here that a fix for backend will be happening: #64228 (comment)

In your example on ios if you would enter the actual report and then move back, are the arrows working then?

Please just assume that the arrows should be correct AFTER you have entered the actual money request. Anything before that is a backend bug that will be fixed separately.

We are running in circles with this bug :|

parasharrajat · 2025-06-27T15:12:43Z

Oh my bad. I thought I saw it working before, so I raised it. Thanks for confirming.

parasharrajat · 2025-06-27T15:26:49Z

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

27.06.2025_20.47.05_REC.mp4

🔲 iOS / Safari

27.06.2025_20.48.45_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Desktop

27.06.2025_20.56.23_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

27.06.2025_17.52.11_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / Chrome

27.06.2025_20.49.58_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / native

27.06.2025_17.53.34_REC.mp4

parasharrajat

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 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 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 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

mountiny · 2025-06-30T02:01:25Z

Backend PR was merged https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/15989

mountiny

One NAB @Kicu looking good otherwise, thank you very much

mountiny · 2025-06-30T02:06:58Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/TransactionPreview/types.ts

    /** Holds the transaction data entry from Onyx */
    transaction: OnyxEntry<Transaction>;

+    /** The original amount value on the transaction. This is used to deduce who is the sender and who is the receiver of the money request


I do not like the word original in this context as technically we have the modified amount, that is the changed/edited amount and amount is the original initially set amount so I think this could be slightly confusing to some

Suggested change

/** The original amount value on the transaction. This is used to deduce who is the sender and who is the receiver of the money request

/** The amount of the transaction saved in the database. This is used to deduce who is the sender and who is the receiver of the money request

Sounds good. We a few different versions of the amount so the nomenclature is tricky.
For split, if I split 10usd with you 5/5, then there exists both a transaction for (+|-)500 and the transaction for full 1000

FYI corrected here: 389f7f9

OSBotify · 2025-06-30T02:16:44Z

✋ 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 · 2025-06-30T22:50:40Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.1.73-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-07-01T22:06:19Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.1.73-0 🚀

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

Kicu commented Jun 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

Kicu force-pushed the kicu/62783-transactions-preview-amount branch 2 times, most recently from 99cf22a to 9d15839 Compare June 16, 2025 12:24

Kicu added 2 commits June 17, 2025 08:07

Fix computing receiver and payer for IOU transaction preview

0823ea5

Remove unneeded TransactionUtils storybook mock

7204740

Kicu force-pushed the kicu/62783-transactions-preview-amount branch from 9d15839 to 7204740 Compare June 17, 2025 06:07

Kicu marked this pull request as ready for review June 17, 2025 06:11

Kicu requested a review from a team as a code owner June 17, 2025 06:11

melvin-bot bot requested a review from parasharrajat June 17, 2025 06:11

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team June 17, 2025 06:11

Kicu mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-07-08] [Better Expense Report View] [$250] Sender>Receiver instead of Receiver>Sender is shown for expense submitted by receiver in IOU Report Preview #62783

Closed

8 tasks

mountiny requested review from mountiny June 17, 2025 12:34

mountiny assigned Kicu Jun 17, 2025

Merge branch 'main' into kicu/62783-transactions-preview-amount

70045d3

JakubKorytko mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-07-18] IOU - Avatar and sender name broken for IOUs #62869

Closed

16 tasks

JakubKorytko mentioned this pull request Jun 25, 2025

[Avatars - Reports] If a report contains the expenses of one person, only display their avatar + fix isOneTransactionReport #64802

Merged

48 tasks

Kicu added 2 commits June 25, 2025 13:31

Fix displaying sender/receiver for split money request preview

b6c9fce

Merge branch 'main' into kicu/62783-transactions-preview-amount

d9dc921

Fix MoneyRequestReportPreview.stories.tsx

c5ce6a0

parasharrajat approved these changes Jun 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny approved these changes Jun 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit b92b8f2 into Expensify:main Jun 30, 2025
20 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-06-30 #65214

Closed

29 tasks

	/** The original amount value on the transaction. This is used to deduce who is the sender and who is the receiver of the money request
	/** The amount of the transaction saved in the database. This is used to deduce who is the sender and who is the receiver of the money request

Conversation

Kicu commented Jun 16, 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!

Kicu Jun 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Why I renamed this prop?

Uh oh!

parasharrajat Jun 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Kicu Jun 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Kicu commented Jun 18, 2025

vid

Uh oh!

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

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Kicu commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 18, 2025

Uh oh!

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

Uh oh!

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

🔲 iOS / Safari

🔲 MacOS / Desktop

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

🔲 Android / Chrome

🔲 Android / native

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Jun 19, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Kicu commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Kicu commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Kicu commented Jun 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Kicu commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jun 25, 2025

Kicu commented Jun 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Kicu Jun 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jun 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Jun 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jun 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jun 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jun 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jun 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Kicu commented Jun 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Kicu commented Jun 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Jun 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading