[HOLD for payment 2024-01-03][$250] [Search v1.2] - Pay button does not appear when user owes money after deleting expense

[IuliiaHerets]

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: 9.0.66-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: Y
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): applausetester+kh0911002@applause.expensifail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. [User A] Send an expense ($10) to user B.
3. [User B] Send an expense of higher amount ($20) to User A.
4. [User B] Go to Search > Outstanding.
5. [User B] Select the expense submitted in Step 3.
6. [User B] Click dropdown button > Delete expense.
7. [User B] Delete the expense.

Expected Result:

Pay button should appear next to the expense in Search for User B because now User B owes User A money.

Actual Result:

Pay button does not appear next to the expense in Search for User B unless the page is refreshed.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6673842_1732335839110.20241123_121641.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021860331085417429817
• Upwork Job ID: 1860331085417429817
• Last Price Increase: 2024-11-23

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @isabelastisser

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @isabelastisser (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]

Triggered auto assignment to @carlosmiceli (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.

[melvin-bot]

💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021860331085417429817

[melvin-bot]

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

[carlosmiceli]

Removing DB label because it's very likely an easy fix and a bit of an edge case.

[cretadn22]

@carlosmiceli @luacmartins

This is a BE bug. The BE doesn't return a new value for the action field

[carlosmiceli]

@cretadn22 Gotcha, thanks for letting us know! @luacmartins can you take over this one since you have more context with Search?

[dominictb]

I agree this is a BE issue with DeleteMoneyRequestOnSearch endpoint.

The root cause is when deleting the expense, the report now turns from having 2 to 1 expense only. But the DeleteMoneyRequestOnSearch does not update the transaction's isFromOneTransactionReport from false to true accordingly. It only clears the deleted transaction (set to null). Thus causes this check to fail and getAction returns VIEW for the above transaction (should be PAY).

Only Search returns the correct state so when we refresh the page, pay button appears.

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Lines 268 to 271 in e12c200

	// We don't need to run the logic if this is not a transaction or iou/expense report, so let's shortcircuit the logic for performance reasons
	if (!ReportUtils.isMoneyRequestReport(report) || (isTransaction && !data[key].isFromOneTransactionReport)) {
	return CONST.SEARCH.ACTION_TYPES.VIEW;
	}

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

@dominictb @isabelastisser @dominictb The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @dominictb paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@isabelastisser)

• 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/1860331085417429817/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[isabelastisser]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
• 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
• 2d. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] 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:

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source 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:

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[isabelastisser]

@dominictb, can you please complete the checklist above and share your Upwork profile for payment? Thanks!

[dominictb]

This was not fixed #52999 (comment).

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

@luacmartins, @isabelastisser, @dominictb Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[luacmartins]

I'll work on a new fix this week.

[luacmartins]

BE PR in review

[luacmartins]

PR merged, should be deployed today

[luacmartins]

This is fixed in staging. @isabelastisser I'll keep the issue open to process payment to @dominictb since they reviewed this PR, although it was reverted due to a regression.

[isabelastisser]

@carlosmiceli, thanks for the heads up! @dominictb, does it mean that your PR was not used to fix this issue? Can you please clarify if payment is still required here? Thanks!

[dominictb]

@isabelastisser I helped reviewing #53722 but it then was reverted and decided to fix in the BE. So no checklist is needed and payment for me is required.

[isabelastisser]

Got it, @dominictb! Thanks for the context. I will process the payment in Upwork, can you please share your Upwork profile?

[dominictb]

@isabelastisser Mine is https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01f70bed1934fd35d5

[isabelastisser]

@dominictb, I sent you the offer in Upwork now. All set!