[HOLD for payment 2024-10-29][$125] [Search v1.2] - Admin can delete employee's expenses in Search 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: 9.0.16-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Admin and employee are in the same workspace

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. [Employee] Submit an expense in the workspace chat
3. [Admin] Go to Search
4. [Admin] Select the expense submitted by employee via checkbox
5. [Admin] Click on the dropdown

Expected Result:

Delete option should not be available for admin in Search because Delete option is not present for admin in the transaction thread

Actual Result:

Delete option is available for admin in Search when Delete option is not present for admin in the transaction thread

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

Bug6560363_1722618441824.20240803_005930.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~018f10851e4c993906
• Upwork Job ID: 1821118379211606096
• Last Price Increase: 2024-10-29

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @Pujan92

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @dylanexpensify (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.

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave-control

[lanitochka17]

@dylanexpensify FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors

[MuaazArshad]

Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2023-10-04T16:01:00Z.

Proposal

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

Admin can delete employee's expenses in Search page

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are not hiding the delete option from the admin here. This option should only be available to the action creator. We are not adding the check isActionCreator here

App/src/components/Search/SearchPageHeader.tsx

Line 211 in 459759d

const shouldShowDeleteOption = !isOffline && selectedTransactionsKeys.every((id) => selectedTransactions[id].canDelete);

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

We should check if the current user is action creator we can do something like this

        const shouldShowDeleteOption = !isOffline && selectedTransactionsKeys.every((id) => selectedTransactions[id].canDelete) && isActionCreator;

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

In case we only want to prevent the admin admin from deleting, we can add an isPolicyAdmin check.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @MuaazArshad! 📣
Hey, it seems we don’t have your contributor details yet! You'll only have to do this once, and this is how we'll hire you on Upwork.
Please follow these steps:

1. Make sure you've read and understood the contributing guidelines.
2. Get the email address used to login to your Expensify account. If you don't already have an Expensify account, create one here. If you have multiple accounts (e.g. one for testing), please use your main account email.
3. Get the link to your Upwork profile. It's necessary because we only pay via Upwork. You can access it by logging in, and then clicking on your name. It'll look like this. If you don't already have an account, sign up for one here.
4. Copy the format below and paste it in a comment on this issue. Replace the placeholder text with your actual details.
   
   Format:

Contributor details
Your Expensify account email: <REPLACE EMAIL HERE>
Upwork Profile Link: <REPLACE LINK HERE>

[github-actions]

Expensifybot Your proposal will be dismissed because you did not follow the proposal template.

[MuaazArshad]

Contributor details
Your Expensify account email: mooeez.arshad@gmail.com
Upwork Profile Link: https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~017994bec44c81b9d0

[melvin-bot]

✅ Contributor details stored successfully. Thank you for contributing to Expensify!

[daledah]

Proposal

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

Delete option is available for admin in Search when Delete option is not present for admin in the transaction thread

What is the root cause of that problem?

Here is the condition to display delete option in report detail page:

App/src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

Line 197 in b8539ab

const canDeleteRequest = isActionOwner && (ReportUtils.canDeleteTransaction(moneyRequestReport) || isSelfDMTrackExpenseReport) && !isDeletedParentAction;

and here is the condition to display delete option in search page:

App/src/components/Search/SearchPageHeader.tsx

Line 211 in 459759d

const shouldShowDeleteOption = !isOffline && selectedTransactionsKeys.every((id) => selectedTransactions[id].canDelete);

in there, canDelete is returned by BE and its value is true

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

Should make sure, if user is admin, use is able to delete expense by updating

App/src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

Line 197 in b8539ab

const canDeleteRequest = isActionOwner && (ReportUtils.canDeleteTransaction(moneyRequestReport) || isSelfDMTrackExpenseReport) && !isDeletedParentAction;

to

    const isAdmin = policy?.role === CONST.POLICY.ROLE.ADMIN;
    const canDeleteRequest = (isActionOwner || isAdmin) && (ReportUtils.canDeleteTransaction(moneyRequestReport) || isSelfDMTrackExpenseReport) && !isDeletedParentAction;

[dylanexpensify]

reviewing today!

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~018f10851e4c993906

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @Pujan92 (External)

[dylanexpensify]

Made external

[melvin-bot]

@Pujan92, @dylanexpensify Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[Pujan92]

@dylanexpensify Can you plz help to decide the expected behavior?

Are expenses can be deleted by admin from both places or we shouldn't allow delete operation to admin from both places?

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[MuaazArshad]

@Pujan92 @dylanexpensify bump!

[melvin-bot]

@Pujan92, @dylanexpensify Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[melvin-bot]

@Pujan92 @dylanexpensify this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

@Pujan92, @dylanexpensify 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[luacmartins]

No updates yet, gonna try to work on it this week.

[luacmartins]

PR in review

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sonialiap (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.

[dylanexpensify]

Hey @sonialiap! I'm heading out on parental leave so reassigning this! TY! 🙇‍♂️

[melvin-bot]

@Pujan92, @sonialiap, @luacmartins, @daledah Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[Pujan92]

@luacmartins @stitesExpensify I would like to just confirm whether we are eligible for any compensation here because based on the initial confirmation of requirements we proceeded and merged the PR.

[melvin-bot]

Upwork job price has been updated to $125

[luacmartins]

Sure, but I think it'd be 50% of the amount since it technically caused a regression.

[Pujan92]

Agree @luacmartins, Thanks!

@sonialiap can you plz post payment summary

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Reviewer: @Pujan92 owed $250 via NewDot
• ROLE: @daledah paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@sonialiap)

• 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/1821118379211606096/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[sonialiap]

Payment summary:

• @Pujan92 $125 via NewDot
• @daledah $125 paid in upwork ✔️

[sonialiap]

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:

•  [@Pujan92] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
•  [@Pujan92] 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:
•  [@Pujan92] 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:
•  [@Pujan92] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
•  [@Pujan92] 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.
•  [@sonialiap] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[garrettmknight]

@Pujan92 can you complete the checklist?

[Pujan92]

@garrettmknight We don't need a checklist here as the expected behavior has been changed and PR for this is reverted, BE fix only required.

[garrettmknight]

$125 approved for @Pujan92