[HOLD for payment 2024-08-07] [$250] Dupe detect - Removed expense during review offline is accessible & fields open not here 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: 9.0.10-2
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat
3. Submit two same expenses (same amount. date and merchant)
4. Go to any transaction thread
5. Go offline
6. Click Review duplicates
7. Click Keep this one (any)
8. On confirmation page, click Confirm
9. Return to the expense report
10. Click on the expense preview with skeleton

Expected Result:

The expense which is removed during duplicate review offline should be crossed out and inaccessible

Actual Result:

The expense which is removed during duplicate review offline is accessible and all the fields in the transaction thread lead to not here 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

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6549542_1721659868909.bandicam_2024-07-22_22-46-56-762.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~011cf834f88beec2ec
• Upwork Job ID: 1815779453230360541
• Last Price Increase: 2024-07-23

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @OfstadC

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @roryabraham (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[github-actions]

👋 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.

[MariaHCD]

@lanitochka17 just to confirm, this bug is not reproducible on production? Do you have a recording of the behavior on production?

[roryabraham]

was able to reproduce this one locally

[roryabraham]

The problem here is that in IOU.mergeDuplicates we need to also optimistically delete the IOU reportActions for the transactions marked as duplicates

[roryabraham]

A broad set of changes will be required here:

• update the lastMessageText and lastMessageHTML for the policyExpenseChat
• set message.deleted for the IOU action on the expense report
• update the message[0].text and message[0].html for the REPORT_PREVIEW action in the policyExpenseChat
• update the MoneyRequestAction component to return null if the action is deleted

[roryabraham]

WIP PR to fix this issue: #45961

[francoisl]

Any luck with that PR @roryabraham?

[roryabraham]

That PR fixes this issue, and I was working on fixing related issues where the total on the expense report and policyExpenseChat are not optimistically updated to account for the merged dupes. I think I may have fixed it but didn't get a chance to test it

[mountiny]

Demoting per the discussing in slack, the feature is behind beta and since we have only few blockers left, not going to hold on this one

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @OfstadC (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.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~011cf834f88beec2ec

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @brunovjk is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[roryabraham]

Just added external to get a job created for the C+ review. The PR is already ready for review

[brunovjk]

Sure! I will review after lunch. Thank you.

[melvin-bot]

@OfstadC, @roryabraham, @brunovjk Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[brunovjk]

PR is on staging.

[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 9.0.14-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix optimistic duplicate expense merge #45961

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-07. 🎊

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

• @brunovjk requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

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

[OfstadC]

@brunovjk Please complete the checklist today so we can issue payment tomorrow 😃

[brunovjk]

• [@brunovjk] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: N/A
• [@brunovjk] 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: N/A
• [@brunovjk] 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
• [@brunovjk] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Yes
• [@brunovjk] 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.

Regression Test Proposal:

1. Sign in
2. Create a workspace if needed
3. Submit two duplicate expenses to the policy expense chat for that workspace
4. Open the expense thread for one of the violations (it should appear in the LHN with a red dot)
5. Go offline
6. Click Resolve Duplicates
7. Pick either one of the duplicate transactions then confirm
8. verify that the total of the report updates correctly in the LHN.
9. Click on the workspace chat.
10. verify that there's no skeleton action for the removed expense
11. verify that the expense report preview shows the correct total

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[OfstadC]

@brunovjk I sent you a manual offer in Upwork - can you accept? 😃 Thanks!

[OfstadC]

https://www.upwork.com/nx/wm/offer/103433638

[brunovjk]

Done @OfstadC, thank you

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @brunovjk paid $250 via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@OfstadC)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1815779453230360541/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[OfstadC]

https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/418708

Closing since regression test was created and Upwork contract has been paid/closed