[$250] Refactor shareTrackedExpense to use a parameter object

[neil-marcellini]

As part of the tracking issue, and as advised in its description, refactor shareTrackedExpense to use a parameter object.

cc @ChavdaSachin

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021871214955675002445
• Upwork Job ID: 1871214955675002445
• Last Price Increase: 2024-12-23

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @eVoloshchak

[ChavdaSachin]

Proposal

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

Refactor

What is the root cause of that problem?

NA

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

Refactor IOU.shareTrackedExpense function.
Minimize Input fields and cluster input params in sensible sub-objects.

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

No Changes.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

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.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021871214955675002445

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

@eVoloshchak, @neil-marcellini, @MitchExpensify, @ChavdaSachin Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[neil-marcellini]

Bump @ChavdaSachin, when will you be able to get the PR up for review?

[ChavdaSachin]

Yes I might raise it by EOD.

[ChavdaSachin]

PR is ready for review.
IOU.shareTrackedExpense function is quite similar to IOU.categorizeTrackedExpense function.
So, I have renamed a few previously included type definitions and reused them.
suggestion made here is also implemented in current PR as discussed.
Also this suggestion was taken into account.

cc. @neil-marcellini

[ChavdaSachin]

@neil-marcellini there's no communication from c+ since the issue is created, could you look into it please?
Maybe assign a different c+ to keep it going...

[parasharrajat]

I can help review it as C+ @neil-marcellini @ChavdaSachin

[neil-marcellini]

Hi @ChavdaSachin I requested a small change and there are merge conflicts on the PR.

[neil-marcellini]

We merged the PR to implement this. We will need another PR to ensure that we follow our guidance on defaultIDs in the file, so the issue shouldn't be complete until that PR is.

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @eVoloshchak, @neil-marcellini, @MitchExpensify, @ChavdaSachin 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!

[ChavdaSachin]

@neil-marcellini default IDs are already implemented Here, we are free to close this issue as soon as 7 days regresion period is over for this PR.

[ChavdaSachin]

@neil-marcellini could you please send upwork offers and mark this GH as pending for payment.
check my previous comment.

[MitchExpensify]

@ChavdaSachin It's my role to make sure the Upwork offers are sent. Has the PR hit production yet? The offers should go out automatically once it has

[ChavdaSachin]

Pr did hit production 7 days back

[MitchExpensify]

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 👎

[MitchExpensify]

Payment summary:

• $250 @ChavdaSachin Reviewer
• $250 @eVoloshchak Reviewer - NewDot

[MitchExpensify]

Here is your offer @ChavdaSachin https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1886926850410966330/suggested

[ChavdaSachin]

Accepted

[MitchExpensify]

Paid, thanks!

[eVoloshchak]

BugZero Checklist in #54466 (comment)

Classify the bug

This isn't a bug, but rather a code improvement, not sure if this classification applies here

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.

Same as above, not a bug, there is no offending PR
No additional discussion in Slack or regression test are needed either

@eVoloshchak Reviewer - do you require payment on New Dot or Upwork?

I'll request through NewDot