Fix: Optimistically copy submission/approval related report actions

[mohammadjafarinejad]

Explanation of Change

Optimistically copy submission/approval related report actions

Fixed Issues

$ #74575
PROPOSAL: #74575 (comment)

Tests

1. Have a workspace with a Control workspace
2. Go to the workspace settings -> Workflows -> and enable Add Approvals
3. Configure multi-level approvers so that expenses from everyone have approver1 as the First approver, approver2 as the Second approver, and approver3 as the Third approver
4. Have an user named submitter manually submit a report with 6 expenses (let's call it report1)
5. As the user approver1, go to the submitter's workspace chat and open the report
6. Hold 2 expenses from the report
7. Click on the Approve button for the report1
8. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses from the report
9. Verify that you see the report action showing that the report1 was approved by approver1
10. Verify that the report1 now has only the 4 expenses that are not held and is awaiting approval from approver2
11. Go back to the submitter's workspace chat
12. Verify that a new report (report2) was created and the 2 held expenses were moved to it
13. Verify that the report2 with the held expenses is submitted and awaiting approval from approver1
14. Verify that the SUBMITTED report action from the report1 is copied to the report2 (it has the same actor, submitter, and the same timestamp)
15. Verify that a new report action is added to the report2 stating that it was created for the held expenses from the report1
16. As approver2 go to the submitter's workspace chat and click on the report1
17. Hold an expense and then click on the Approve button for the report1
18. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses
19. Verify that you see a report action for the approver2 approval and the report1 now only has the 3 unheld expenses, awaiting approval from approver3
20. Go to the submitter's workspace chat and verify that a new report (report3) has been created and the held expense was moved to it
21. Verify that the report3 has copies of the SUBMITTED and APPROVE report actions from the report1, with the same actors and timestamps
22. Verify that a new report action is added to the report3 stating that it was created for the held expenses from the report1
23. Verify that report3 is awaiting approval from approver2
24. As approver3 go to the submitter's workspace chat and click on the report1
25. Hold an expense and then click on the Approve button for the report1
26. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses
27. Verify that you see a report action for the approver3 approval and the report1 now only has the 2 unheld expenses, and is finally approved
28. Go to the submitter's workspace chat and verify that a new report (report4) has been created and the held expense was moved to it
29. Verify that the report4 has copies of the SUBMITTED and APPROVE report actions from the report1, with the same actors and timestamps
30. Verify that a new report action is added to the report4 stating that it was created for the held expenses from the report1
31. Verify that report4 is awaiting approval from approver3

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as test.

QA Steps

Same as test.

• 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
• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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 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 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.ts 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(theme.componentBG))
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_web.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_web.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/actions/IOU.ts	64.94% <66.66%> (+0.22%)	⬆️
... and 117 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@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]

@mohammadjafarinejad I think you should use this #77960 (comment). It will automatically enable types based on the key used.

[parasharrajat]

@mohammadjafarinejad Use these test steps

1. Have a workspace with a Control workspace
2. Go to the workspace settings -> Workflows -> and enable Add Approvals
3. Configure multi-level approvers so that expenses from everyone have approver1 as the First approver, approver2 as the Second approver, and approver3 as the Third approver
4. Have an user named submitter manually submit a report with 6 expenses (let's call it report1)
5. As the user approver1, go to the submitter's workspace chat and open the report
6. Hold 2 expenses from the report
7. Click on the Approve button for the report1
8. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses from the report
9. Verify that you see the report action showing that the report1 was approved by approver1
10. Verify that the report1 now has only the 4 expenses that are not held and is awaiting approval from approver2
11. Go back to the submitter's workspace chat
12. Verify that a new report (report2) was created and the 2 held expenses were moved to it
13. Verify that the report2 with the held expenses is submitted and awaiting approval from approver1
14. Verify that the SUBMITTED report action from the report1 is copied to the report2 (it has the same actor, submitter, and the same timestamp)
15. Verify that a new report action is added to the report2 stating that it was created for the held expenses from the report1
16. As approver2 go to the submitter's workspace chat and click on the report1
17. Hold an expense and then click on the Approve button for the report1
18. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses
19. Verify that you see a report action for the approver2 approval and the report1 now only has the 3 unheld expenses, awaiting approval from approver3
20. Go to the submitter's workspace chat and verify that a new report (report3) has been created and the held expense was moved to it
21. Verify that the report3 has copies of the SUBMITTED and APPROVE report actions from the report1, with the same actors and timestamps
22. Verify that a new report action is added to the report3 stating that it was created for the held expenses from the report1
23. Verify that report3 is awaiting approval from approver2
24. As approver3 go to the submitter's workspace chat and click on the report1
25. Hold an expense and then click on the Approve button for the report1
26. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses
27. Verify that you see a report action for the approver3 approval and the report1 now only has the 2 unheld expenses, and is finally approved
28. Go to the submitter's workspace chat and verify that a new report (report4) has been created and the held expense was moved to it
29. Verify that the report4 has copies of the SUBMITTED and APPROVE report actions from the report1, with the same actors and timestamps
30. Verify that a new report action is added to the report4 stating that it was created for the held expenses from the report1
31. Verify that report4 is awaiting approval from approver3

[mohammadjafarinejad]

@parasharrajat Thanks for the test steps.

@cristipaval I think we need a new parameter in PayMoneyRequestParams called optimisticDuplicatedReportActionIDs (similar to optimisticHoldReportExpenseActionIDs) to prevent duplicate workflow actions.

Currently, when workflow actions are copied to a new partial report, they appear duplicated because the backend generates new IDs instead of using the frontend's optimistic IDs.

App/src/libs/API/parameters/PayMoneyRequestParams.ts

Lines 12 to 19 in 0caab12

	/**
	* Stringified JSON object with type of following structure:
	* Array<{
	* optimisticReportActionID: string;
	* oldReportActionID: string;
	* }>
	*/
	optimisticHoldReportExpenseActionIDs?: string;

[cristipaval]

I'll work on this early next week

[parasharrajat]

Gentle reminder for this @cristipaval.

[cristipaval]

Currently, when workflow actions are copied to a new partial report, they appear duplicated because the backend generates new IDs instead of using the frontend's optimistic IDs.

@mohammadjafarinejad @parasharrajat, could you please help me with the reproduction steps for this? 🙏

[parasharrajat]

@cristipaval

1. Create an expense report with multiple expenses in a workspace where approval workflow is disabled.
2. Hold a few of them.
3. Submit the report.
4. Retract the report.
5. Submit the report again.
6. Set hold again if removed.
7. Pay the report.
8. Select pay only unheld expenses option.
9. Open the new report.
10. Check whether the submitted or retracted actions were copied properly.

[parasharrajat]

@mohammadjafarinejad We shouldn't copy the actions for Pay Flow. Can you restrict it to approvals only?

Did you check whether backend creates copy of actions for pay flow as well?

[cristipaval]

@mohammadjafarinejad We shouldn't copy the actions for Pay Flow. Can you restrict it to approvals only?

Did you check whether backend creates copy of actions for pay flow as well?

yes, @parasharrajat and I chatted internally and I confirm this. I also tested and the backend doesn't create report action copies as part of the Pay flow

[parasharrajat]

Any update @mohammadjafarinejad

[parasharrajat]

Bump @mohammadjafarinejad

[cristipaval]

[parasharrajat]

I see. thanks.

[hungvu193]

Oh I can take over, but since the contributor was the author. I think I'll open a new PR based on these changes here?

[hungvu193]

yes, @parasharrajat and I chatted internally and I confirm this. I also tested and the backend doesn't create report action copies as part of the Pay flow

@parasharrajat @cristipaval Quick question: Which action is related to the Pay flow?

[parasharrajat]

when you say action? What do you mean @hungvu193?

Here are the test steps for pay flow #77960 (comment).

[hungvu193]

when you say action? What do you mean @hungvu193?

Here are the test steps for pay flow #77960 (comment).

Oh I mean report action.

[parasharrajat]

You will have to debug that. I am not sure about it currently. So you need to add if condition to make sure that changes are only only approveflow. I don't remember but we recently merged a PR that adds that filteration logic so you just need to use that.

https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/78267/changes#diff-6fb87ca734958ef32027f3b720e56041d036618453094cf930d4d877e592b7ff

[hungvu193]

I see. Thanks!

[hungvu193]

I created a draft PR here: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/79524/changes