Conversation
melvin-bot
bot
requested review from
heyjennahay and
truph01
and removed request for
a team
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 198875ccfc
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
Codecov Report❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.
|
Reviewer Checklist
Screenshots/VideosAndroid: HybridAppAndroid: mWeb ChromeScreen.Recording.2026-02-05.at.01.12.48.moviOS: HybridAppiOS: mWeb SafariScreen.Recording.2026-02-05.at.01.10.31.movMacOS: Chrome / SafariScreen.Recording.2026-02-05.at.01.08.26.mov |
| return transaction?.amount === undefined && (!transaction?.modifiedAmount === undefined || transaction?.modifiedAmount === ''); | ||
| } | ||
| return (transaction?.amount === 0 || transaction?.amount === undefined) && (!transaction?.modifiedAmount || transaction?.modifiedAmount === 0 || transaction?.modifiedAmount === ''); | ||
| return transaction?.amount === undefined && (transaction?.modifiedAmount === undefined || transaction?.modifiedAmount === ''); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you help explain why we have logic !transaction?.modifiedAmount === undefined in the old version, which is always false?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like a mistake that did not get caught before (probably because it was behind a beta)
| const isScanning = TransactionUtils.isScanning(updatedTransaction); | ||
| const isScanRequest = TransactionUtils.isScanRequest(updatedTransaction); | ||
| const isPartialTransaction = TransactionUtils.isPartial(updatedTransaction); | ||
| const isPartialTransaction = TransactionUtils.isPartialTransaction(updatedTransaction); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here, we replace isPartial with isPartialTransaction, but the results of these functions are not equivalent.
For example, in the case of a valid merchant with a missing amount (scan request):
isPartial:falseisPartialTransaction:true
Given this discrepancy, I believe it's safer to continue using the original isPartial—unless we can confirm with confidence that isPartialTransaction is the more appropriate choice in this context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah. This is a weird one. These two functions should be checking the same: whether a transaction is a partial transaction. We should not have two functions that check the same.
Effectively, they should do the same, as when the merchant is partial, the amount should always be zero anyways, but isPartialTransaction seems more complete, as a missing merchant also indicates a partial transaction.
|
@Gonals Could you help check my comments above? |
Focusing on other areas this week. I'll come back to this next week :) |
|
@truph01, comments addressed! |
truph01
left a comment
truph01
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I encountered an issue while building the native app. Here’s the link to the discussion:
https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1770196227977789
I’ll update this with a video once the issue is fixed.
Other than that, the PR looks good to me 👍
|
@srikarparsi 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] |
|
🚧 @srikarparsi has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here. |
|
🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
|
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/srikarparsi in version: 9.3.13-1 🚀
|
|
Hi @Gonals. Any QA steps here? |
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/srikarparsi in version: 9.3.15-0 🚀
|
|
🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.15-10 🚀
|
5 participants
Explanation of Change
Fixed Issues
$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/569824
PROPOSAL:
Tests
Just removing the beta. Full tests in the main PR
Offline tests
None
QA Steps
Same as tests
// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
PR Author Checklist
### Fixed Issuessection aboveTestssectionOffline stepssectionQA stepssectioncanBeMissingparam foruseOnyxtoggleReportand notonIconClick)src/languages/*files and using the translation methodSTYLE.md) were followedAvatar, I verified the components usingAvatarare working as expected)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))npm run compress-svg)Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases)Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso the design team can review the changes.ScrollViewcomponent to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps.Screenshots/Videos
Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari