[$250] Violations - "Receipt required" error message is missing from the expense details

[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: 9.0.18-3
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

Issue was found when executing PR #44995 (comment)

Action Performed:

1. ND: Navigate to https://staging.new.expensify.com/
2. ND: Log in and validate a new Gmail account
3. ND: Create a workspace
4. ND: Switch to OD by navigating to Account settings - Cards & Domains
5. OD: Navigate to Settings - Workspaces - Group - Created workspace - Expenses
6. OD: Enable "Expense Violations"
7. OD: Upgrade the workspace to Control by clicking on the padlock icon
8. OD: Set "Receipt Required Amount" to any value but remain under the value set in "Max Expense Amount"
9. ND: Navigate to the workspace chat
10. ND: Navigate to Composers "+" button - Submit expense - Manual
11. ND: Set any value that's above "Receipt Required Amount" set in OD but under "Max Expense Amount"

Expected Result:

"Receipt required" error message should be visible

Actual Result:

"Receipt required" error message is missing from the expense details. The RBR shows in the LHN but the message is missing. Affects "Receipt Required Amount" amount set in OD Expenses tab and "Max Amount" set in a Category too

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

Bug6565908_1723140325765.bandicam_2024-08-08_19-50-44-957.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01da9c71405c9b9ab9
• Upwork Job ID: 1823792599432282200
• Last Price Increase: 2024-08-14
• Automatic offers:
• akinwale | Reviewer | 103539096
• ShridharGoel | Contributor | 103539097
• dominictb | Contributor | 103689285

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @akinwale

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @puneetlath (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.

[dominictb]

Proposal

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

"Receipt required" error message is missing from the expense details. The RBR shows in the LHN but the message is missing. Affects "Receipt Required Amount" amount set in OD Expenses tab and "Max Amount" set in a Category too

What is the root cause of that problem?

We do not handle the case the transaction have violation receiptRequired when displaying audit messages. In there:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 388 in 107e7ba

const shouldShowAuditMessage = !isReceiptBeingScanned && hasReceipt && !!(receiptViolations.length || didReceiptScanSucceed) && ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicy(report);

we just display the audit if hasReceipt is true although we have violation receiptRequired.

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

Need to create new variable receiptRequiredViolation:

    const receiptRequiredViolation = transactionViolations?.find((violation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_REQUIRED);

then update shouldShowAuditMessage:

    const shouldShowAuditMessage = !isReceiptBeingScanned && (hasReceipt || receiptRequiredViolation) && !!(receiptViolations.length || didReceiptScanSucceed) && ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicy(report);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

If we don't want to display the audit result in case of receiptRequired violation, beside the main solution above, add an additional && !receiptRequiredViolation to:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 434 in 107e7ba

shouldShowAuditResult={shouldShowAuditMessage}

[cead22]

@ShridharGoel this case should've been covered in the tests for this PR #45760, right? If so, can you take this over and fix it please?

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01da9c71405c9b9ab9

[melvin-bot]

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

[ShridharGoel]

@cead22 Sure, I'll be checking this.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @akinwale 🎉 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]

📣 @ShridharGoel 🎉 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 📖

[dominictb]

@puneetlath I don't think this issue is related to PR, because that PR is just to remove violations beta from front-end. Can you help check again?

[dominictb]

@puneetlath Can you check my comment above? Thanks

[puneetlath]

@akinwale @dominictb @ShridharGoel maybe y'all can figure that out between you?

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath, @akinwale, @ShridharGoel Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[dominictb]

@akinwale Can you verify my comment?

[puneetlath]

@akinwale any thoughts?

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath @akinwale @ShridharGoel 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]

@puneetlath, @akinwale, @ShridharGoel 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[puneetlath]

@akinwale bump.

[akinwale]

Missed the initial notification on this.

It looks like @dominictb's assessment is accurate. The proposed root cause and fix is not related to violations being in beta, so we can move forward with the proposal here.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed.

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @puneetlath is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @dominictb 🎉 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 📖

[cead22]

@puneetlath I don't think this issue is related to PR, because that PR is just to remove violations beta from front-end. Can you help check again?

@dominictb do the test steps in that PR not cover this scenario? If so, can you share how we need to update those test steps to make sure this case is covered?

If the tests do cover this scenario, then I think it makes sense to consider this as a regression of that PR, since the reason this issue #44995 was created with a higher bounty than the default, was to ensure the tests all passed.

That said, I don't feel super strongly about treating this as a regression vs considering it a new issue. I just wanted to provide the context and make sure that we update the test steps as part of the proposal

[dominictb]

do the test steps in that PR not cover this scenario?

Yes. It does not cover this scenario because this issue does not belong to scope of that PR.

If so, can you share how we need to update those test steps to make sure this case is covered.

The test steps are added in here.

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @puneetlath, @akinwale, @dominictb eroding to Monthly issue.

P.S. Is everyone reading this sure this is really a near-term priority? Be brave: if you disagree, go ahead and close it out. If someone disagrees, they'll reopen it, and if they don't: one less thing to do!

[puneetlath]

Looks like the PR was deployed to production 3 days ago. Is that right?