[HOLD for payment 2024-08-19] [$250] Expense - Payment options displayed before submitting in thread created inside details page

[izarutskaya]

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: 1.4.69-2
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/4534255
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Issue reported by: Applause-Internal team

Action Performed:

1. Navigate to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Create a workspace
3. Open workspace chat
4. Submit an expense
5. Open expense details page
6. Send a message
7. Hover over the sent message and click on reply in thread

Expected Result:

The expense preview component inside the thread doesn't show options to pay the expense

Actual Result:

There are options to pay the expense on the expense preview component inside the thread and when clicked shows an RBR

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

Bug6468671_1714638988287.bandicam_2024-05-02_11-18-23-185.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01140896862273d9dc
• Upwork Job ID: 1787962387841482752
• Last Price Increase: 2024-05-21
• Automatic offers:
• kmbcook | Contributor | 102440887

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @sakluger / @sakluger / @lschurr

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @puneetlath / @sakluger / @lschurr

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @puneetlath / @sakluger

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sakluger (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[izarutskaya]

We think this issue might be related to the #vip-vsb.

[cretadn22]

Proposal

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

The wrong status on button

What is the root cause of that problem?

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/ReportPreview.tsx

Lines 127 to 128 in 7eabae9

	const isPolicyExpenseChat = ReportUtils.isPolicyExpenseChat(chatReport);
	const isOpenExpenseReport = isPolicyExpenseChat && ReportUtils.isOpenExpenseReport(iouReport);

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Line 5805 in 7eabae9

const isOpenExpenseReport = isPolicyExpenseChat && ReportUtils.isOpenExpenseReport(iouReport);

The bug occurred because isOpenExpenseReport is false in these instances due to isPolicyExpenseChat also being false. isPolicyExpenseChat is false because we've used the wrong parameter for isPolicyExpenseChat function

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

Let's see the logic in the header

App/src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

Line 95 in 7eabae9

const isDraft = ReportUtils.isOpenExpenseReport(moneyRequestReport);

App/src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx

Line 114 in 7eabae9

const shouldShowSubmitButton = isDraft && reimbursableSpend !== 0;

In the shouldShowSubmitButton, we don't include the isPolicyExpenseChat condition, which means we also should remove isPolicyExpenseChat condition from these places

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/ReportPreview.tsx

Line 128 in 7eabae9

const isOpenExpenseReport = isPolicyExpenseChat && ReportUtils.isOpenExpenseReport(iouReport);

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Line 5805 in 7eabae9

const isOpenExpenseReport = isPolicyExpenseChat && ReportUtils.isOpenExpenseReport(iouReport);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

If we prefer not to remove isPolicyExpenseChat in these places, we'll need to update it to use root parent report

    const isPolicyExpenseChat = ReportUtils.isPolicyExpenseChat(ReportUtils.getRootParentReport(chatReport));

Since the isPolicyExpenseChat function relies on the report.chatType field, which is only true when we use the root parent report

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[sakluger]

I'm OOO today and Monday - assigning another BZ team member to help triage. I can take back over on Tuesday.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @miljakljajic (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[kmbcook]

Proposal

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

Payment options displayed before submitting in thread created inside details page

What is the root cause of that problem?

The root cause stems from #34640 where ReportUtils.getAllAncestorReportActions was written. That function returns an array of ancestors. The problem is that each ancestor in the array contains the incorrect report. The report action is correct, but the report is not; it is the report created by the action, but it should be the report containing the action.

ReportActionItemParentAction uses getAllAncestorReportActions to get ancestors.

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemParentAction.tsx

Line 81 in d38fb99

setAllAncestors(ReportUtils.getAllAncestorReportActions(report));

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemParentAction.tsx

Line 89 in d38fb99

setAllAncestors(ReportUtils.getAllAncestorReportActions(report));

ReportActionItemParentAction wraps ReportActionItem. ReportActionItem expects that its report prop is the same report which contains its action prop.

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

Lines 112 to 113 in d38fb99

	/** Report for this action */
	report: OnyxTypes.Report;

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

Lines 130 to 131 in d38fb99

	/** All the data of the action item */
	action: OnyxTypes.ReportAction;

ReportActionItem does not expect that its report prop is the report created by its action prop. If so, its action prop would be the parent report action of its report prop. But ReportActionItem already has a parentReportAction prop.

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

Lines 122 to 123 in d38fb99

	/** Report action belonging to the report's parent */
	parentReportAction: OnyxEntry<OnyxTypes.ReportAction>;

Currently, props are being passed to ReportActionItem from ReportActionItemParentAction which do not conform to the above prop definitions.

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

Fix getAllAncestorReportActions so that each ancestor contains the correct report, the one that contains the report action. Below is the code which creates an ancestor.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 6171 to 6175 in 387ab0e

	allAncestors.push({
	report: currentReport,
	reportAction: parentReportAction,
	shouldDisplayNewMarker: isParentReportActionUnread,
	});

Change to:
report: parentReport,

That way report will be the one which contains reportAction.

This change fixes the issue.

ReportActionItemParentAction is the only place where getAllAncestorReportActions is accessed.

Afterwards check to see if other follow-up changes are needed.

[melvin-bot]

@sakluger Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01140896862273d9dc

[melvin-bot]

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

[sakluger]

Hey @thesahindia, could you please take a look at the proposals that have been posted so far?

[melvin-bot]

@sakluger, @thesahindia Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[sakluger]

I'm going to re-assign another C+ to keep this one moving.

[kmbcook]

@rushatgabhane on staging.expenisfy.com I can start booking a flight, but then I get this error. (I am using this card number: 4242424242424242, which I saw in #43081)

[rushatgabhane]

okay that should be working and you're able to access the travel website

[kmbcook]

I am able to move forward now. Thanks!

[kmbcook]

Moving this conversation back to the PR.

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath, @sakluger, @kmbcook, @rushatgabhane Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[kmbcook]

PR is being reviewed.

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath, @sakluger, @kmbcook, @rushatgabhane Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[kmbcook]

PR is being reviewed.

[sakluger]

PR is still being reviewed.

[sakluger]

The PR was merged yesterday!

[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 9.0.18-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Reinstate fix get all ancestors in a thread #43518

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-19. 🎊

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

• @kmbcook requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

[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:

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

[sakluger]

Summarizing payment on this issue:

Contributor: @kmbcook $250, paid via Upwork
Contributor+: @rushatgabhane $250, please request on Newdot

@rushatgabhane please complete the BZ checklist.

[rushatgabhane]

1. The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Implement get all ancestor of the thread #34640

2. 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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/34640/files#r1725789269

3. 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: N.A.

4. Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. - Yes

5. 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 -

    1. Open workspace chat
    2. Submit an expense
    3. Open expense details page
    4. Send a message
    5. Hover over the sent message and click on reply in thread
    6. Verify that the expense preview component inside the thread doesn't show options to pay the expense
   

[sakluger]

Thanks! I created the GH issue for new regression test steps.

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @rushatgabhane