Expense details - Fix issues message is displayed on an expense with no violations

[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: v9.0.94-1
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Unable to check
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: #52061
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): expensify416+da2@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: MacOS Chrome, Desktop
App Component: Money Requests

Deliverable

Find the offending PR for this regression, compensation is $25 (Matt A is testing)

Action Performed:

Precondition: account should have self dm, and a workspace

1. Go to self dm > Track expense
2. Click on submit it to someone
3. Select a workspace > click create expense
4. Open the IOU request

Expected Result:

Waiting for You to pay expense(s). message should be displayed on header

Actual Result:

Waiting for You to fix the issue(s) message is displayed on header

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6732972_1738663251466.Screen_Recording_2025-02-04_at_12.53.37_in_the_afternoon.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[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.

[IuliiaHerets]

Prod has different behavior

bandicam.2025-02-04.13-16-32-218.mp4

[mallenexpensify]

@nkuoch were you able to take a look at this?
The want to find the offending PR so we can get the author of the PR to fix this, right?

[mallenexpensify]

Seeing if someone can help us find the offending PR for $25

[shubham1206agra]

My hunch says this is the offending PR #52061

[shubham1206agra]

@FitseTLT @hoangzinh Can you please take a look at this? Since this is stemming from #52061

[dangrous]

There's a chance this is backend, coming from https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/44767 - let me know if you can't find a solution on the front end.

I'm not seeing this behavior on staging though with the steps listed in the issue description

[FitseTLT]

@dangrous Couldn't reproduce I see Waiting for You to pay expense(s). from my side and from the video on the OP you can see that the value changes because it is being set by the BE

2025-02-04.23-19-43.mp4

[nkuoch]

@IuliiaHerets can you still reproduce it? As both @dangrous and @FitseTLT apparently couldn't

[mallenexpensify]

Asking for retest in QA.
https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C9YU7BX5M/p1738701772825669

[nkuoch]

Checked logs for email:expensify416+kakakadfa@gmail.com AND blob:5307662070767896

Seems like reportID 5307662070767896 does have violations in db report cachedData, and that's why the message was displayed?

[nkuoch]

expensify416+kakakadfa@gmail.com reportID 5307662070767896 violation is a notice Cash expense with no receipt

When looking the report on oldDot prod, we say "waiting for .. to pay"

On staging, we say "waiting for you to fix"

[nkuoch]

So indeed the diff between prod and staging is coming from https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/44767/files#diff-975328fad679d2f4376a0c3b5b2997117a75f2e6354fad3554764dd46496fe5bR328 ... not sure if hasViolations should be true if only violation is a notice. cc @iwiznia @dangrous

[dangrous]

we could update this in Web-E quickly if we only want to surface notice violations with strict policy rules - let me know if that's the best plan and I can put up that PR for CP

[nkuoch]

Will CP a tmp quick fix until we've made clear what the correct behavior should be