[HOLD for payment 2023-06-01] [HOLD for payment 2023-05-29] Fix the settled IOUPreview showing incorrectly

[mountiny]

Make sure that the paid message is not shows as IOUPreview but just as a normal message settled up xxx

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @anmurali (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[Prince-Mendiratta]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

In this issue, we want to make sure that if the expense has been settled, we show the textual message instead of IOUPreview.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We always show the IOUPreview even if the IOU been paid.

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItem.js

Line 196 in 3b49ca5

(originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.PAY && originalMessage.IOUDetails))

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We need to add a condition in the line above, && !originalMessage.paymentType to ensure that if the request has been paid via any method, the IOUPreview is not shown.

Moreover, to show the Settled text on IOUs that have been resolved, we need to update this condition such that (!props.iouReport.hasOutstandingIOU && !props.isBillSplit) ? 'Settled' : ''.

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/IOUPreview.js

Lines 161 to 162 in 5fab2de

	default:
	return '';

The logic flow goes like:

1. If the IOU message has a payment type, then the payment type is shown. I don't think this is possible anymore since we render this message textually with the above changes.
2. Since the normal IOU message doesn't have a payment type, we use the same logic as when to show the green checkmark which denote if the IOU has been settled.
   

   App/src/components/ReportActionItem/IOUPreview.js

   Line 208 in 5fab2de

   {!props.iouReport.hasOutstandingIOU && !props.isBillSplit && (

I can create the PR today itself if the issue is assigned to me for help!

Result:

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

None

[trjExpensify]

The request preview components should update to Cash - settled [elsewhere] though too.

[trjExpensify]

@mountiny, let's make sure the title of the expenseReport is correct in the LHN (and search) as well. It still shows "workspaceName owes X" instead of "workspaceName settled $50.00 elsewhere":

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.16-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix couple of manual request bugs #19194

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-05-29. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@mollfpr] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@mollfpr] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@mollfpr] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@mollfpr] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@mollfpr] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@trjExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.17-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix couple of manual request bugs #19194

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-06-01. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@mollfpr] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@mollfpr] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@mollfpr] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@mollfpr] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@mollfpr] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@trjExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[trjExpensify]

Going to close this out, and use the other issue to process @mollfpr's C+ review payment.