[HOLD for payment 2023-11-06] [HOLD for payment 2023-11-02] IOU - After making manual &distance request, user is directed to request money BNP& Scan page

[lanitochka17]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.3.91-0

Reproducible in staging?: Yes

Reproducible in production?: Yes

If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:

Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):

Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Launch app
2. Tap fab
3. Tap request money---Manual
4. Enter an amount
5. Tap next
6. Select an user
7. Tap request amount and note user directed to Request money BNP page
8. Navigate back to LHN
9. Tap fab
10. Tap request money--Scan
11. Tap choose document
12. Select an image
13. Select an user
14. Tap request and note user directed to scan page

Expected Result:

After making manual &distance request, user must not be directed to request money BNP page and Scan page

Actual Result:

After making manual &distance request, user is directed to request money BNP page and Scan page

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Bug6250742_1698260012925.distance.mp4

Bug6250742_1698260012933.scan.mp4

Production

VID_20231025_235455.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @laurenreidexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @laurenreidexpensify (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

[OSBotify]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open StagingDeployCash deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @marcochavezf (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[marcaaron]

Reproducible in production?: Yes

Sorry @lanitochka17 can you confirm that this is or is not repro in production?

[ishpaul777]

could be a regression from #29654, not sure 100%

[neil-marcellini]

Sorry @lanitochka17 can you confirm that this is or is not repro in production?

I just confirmed that it's reproducible on staging and not production. I tested on android chrome.

[marcochavezf]

Not sure if it’s related, but something’s up with the report object in navigateToNextPage

[ishpaul777]

reverting #29654 solves the issue, still investigation RC

[marcochavezf]

reverting #29654 solves the issue, still investigation RC

I see that we're returning all the reports here when params.reportID is an empty string and I think that's expected because we're requesting money from the FAB. I noticed in that PR ^ we're checking if report.reportID exists, but doesn't work for the case where params.reportID is empty.

[ishpaul777]

@marcochavezf Thanks for explaination

[marcochavezf]

Thank you @ishpaul777 for detecting the offending PR. I think it will be better to revert to fix the deploy blocker and then figure out later why we're passing the reports instead of just one report

[marcochavezf]

Oh thanks @ishpaul777, I already did here

[marcaaron]

I think we can remove the blocker here now.

[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 1.3.91-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Revert "Amount changing to zero when editing it by going back in spli… #30403

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-11-02. 🎊

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

[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:

• [@marcochavezf] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@marcochavezf] 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.
• [@laurenreidexpensify] 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 1.3.92-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Revert "Amount changing to zero when editing it by going back in spli… #30403

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-11-06. 🎊

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

[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:

• [@marcochavezf] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@marcochavezf] 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.
• [@laurenreidexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[marcochavezf]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Amount changing to zero when editing it by going back in split bill workflow #29654
• 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: Amount changing to zero when editing it by going back in split bill workflow #29654 (comment)
• 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: There's no need to add a new point to the checklist, we already have two checklist points that can cover this case (retest flows that are impacted by updated components) but I think it can be hard to test all the scenarios that can be impacted by the changes introduced in the PR.
• Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug: I think no because it was already caught by the Applause team

[marcochavezf]

@laurenreidexpensify checklist is done and I think there's no need to update regression tests. There's no payment for C+ review or bug reporting.