[HOLD for payment 2024-02-09] [$125] Split - Error message for merchant required is displayed on failed split in group DM

[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: 1.4.29-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/4211016
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:

Re-requisite: user must have created a group and created a Split bill that will fail

1. Go to group DM
2. Click on the Split bill preview (the one that failed)
3. Scroll down to Merchant field

Expected Result:

Error message for merchant required should not appear, since merchant is not a requirement outside workspace expense

Actual Result:

Error message for merchant required is displayed

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

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6350857_1705947617846.bandicam_2024-01-22_14-14-46-634.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c87576e15c9b6373
• Upwork Job ID: 1749514046195736576
• Last Price Increase: 2024-01-23
• Automatic offers:
• s77rt | Reviewer | 28120335
• paultsimura | Contributor | 28120336

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c87576e15c9b6373

[melvin-bot]

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

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #vip-split-p2p-chat-groups

[paultsimura]

Proposal

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

The Merchant Required error is shown for split requests outside of an Expense report.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We do not properly check if the request belongs to the Policy Expense Chat while showing the merchant error here:

App/src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.js

Lines 714 to 715 in 61c7e0b

	brickRoadIndicator={shouldDisplayFieldError && TransactionUtils.isMerchantMissing(transaction) ? CONST.BRICK_ROAD_INDICATOR_STATUS.ERROR : ''}
	error={shouldDisplayMerchantError || (shouldDisplayFieldError && TransactionUtils.isMerchantMissing(transaction)) ? translate('common.error.enterMerchant') : ''}

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

We should display this error only if the report belongs to the Expense Chat by adding a props.isPolicyExpenseChat check:

brickRoadIndicator={props.isPolicyExpenseChat && shouldDisplayFieldError && TransactionUtils.isMerchantMissing(transaction) ? CONST.BRICK_ROAD_INDICATOR_STATUS.ERROR : ''}
error={shouldDisplayMerchantError || (props.isPolicyExpenseChat && shouldDisplayFieldError && TransactionUtils.isMerchantMissing(transaction)) ? translate('common.error.enterMerchant') : ''}

This can be a bit simplified by moving this whole check into a separate variable and reusing it, but the general idea is the same.

We are making the same check on the MoneyRequestView here:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

Lines 316 to 317 in 5e71037

	brickRoadIndicator={hasViolations('merchant') || (hasErrors && isEmptyMerchant && isPolicyExpenseChat) ? CONST.BRICK_ROAD_INDICATOR_STATUS.ERROR : ''}
	error={hasErrors && isPolicyExpenseChat && isEmptyMerchant ? translate('common.error.enterMerchant') : ''}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @s77rt (External)

[melvin-bot]

Upwork job price has been updated to $125

[paultsimura]

@youssef-lr wouldn't it be fair to make the bounty for this one equal to the other almost identical issue – #33876? What's the difference between these 2 issues?

[youssef-lr]

I think that bug is more important. Merchant is required when smartscan fails, especially in workspaces that are being actively used. Right now, P2P splits haven't really fully launched.

[s77rt]

@paultsimura Thanks for the proposal. Your RCA is correct. The solution looks good to me.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed
Link to proposal

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @cead22, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @s77rt 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

📣 @paultsimura 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[paultsimura]

Thanks. The PR is ready for review: #35112

[melvin-bot]

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

[Christinadobrzyn]

Gonna move this to weekly while the PR is reviewed. Feel free to let me know if you'd prefer it stay daily.

[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 1.4.35-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: Show merchant error only for Policy Expense splits #35112

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-02-09. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @paultsimura requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @s77rt requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)

[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:

• [@s77rt] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@s77rt] 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:
• [@s77rt] 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:
• [@s77rt] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@s77rt] 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.
• [@Christinadobrzyn] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[s77rt]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified: Allow split actions to be edited and implement IOU action completeSplitBill #29064
• The offending PR has been commented on: Allow split actions to be edited and implement IOU action completeSplitBill #29064 (comment)
• A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started: Not needed. This does not seem like the type of bug that could resurface
• Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug: Seeing that this came from a regression test, we may not need another one

[Christinadobrzyn]

Payouts due:

Contributor: $125 @paultsimura (in Upwork - https://www.upwork.com/nx/wm/offer/28120336)
Contributor+: $125 @s77rt (in Upwork - https://www.upwork.com/nx/wm/offer/28120335)

[melvin-bot]

@cead22, @paultsimura, @s77rt, @Christinadobrzyn Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[Christinadobrzyn]

Sorry for the delay - paid out based on this payment summary - #34914 (comment)

It sounds like we don't need a regression test for this, correct @s77rt? If that's the case, I'll close this out. Thanks!

[s77rt]

@Christinadobrzyn Yes we can close this