Display Smartscan errors #26155

Gonals · 2023-08-29T09:18:05Z

cc @mountiny

Details

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/295256
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Set up Smartscan if you haven't yet. I'd recommend clearing any existing receipts in there to make this easier.
Run bwm.sh
Create a new receipt money request from newDot by going to + -> Request Money -> Scan and sending a random image. Make sure to choose a worskpace, as we'll be disabling Scan receipts for IOUs soon. A "Smartscanning" transaction should be created:

Wait for a bit for bwm to do its thing (you are waiting for SmartScan?receiptID=XXX).
Log into expensify.com.dev/expensiworks/
Find the receipt you just uploaded (if you cleared up the other ones, it'll be the only one!) and populate all fields except for the merchant.
Wait for another bit for bwm to do its thing
Fields should be populates in App, and the merchant set to "Unknown merchant" and with a visible error:

The redDot should also be visible in the money request preview:

Report preview:

And LHN (In the parent chat):

Edit the merchant:

The error should disappear from everywhere:

Try with the amount instead of the merchant.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

None

QA Steps

Testing receipts to smartscan is going to be hard, as you'll need to smartscan the receipt yourself... and I'm not sure this is doable. You can set yourself to QA smartscan following this instructions, but it may be hard to get the right receipt.

Alternatively, maybe you can just upload an image with instructions as a receipt? Or a receipt with no merchant visible! That should get the smartscanner to skip it!
Once that is done:

Create a new receipt money request from newDot by going to + -> Request Money -> receipt and sending a random image. Make sure to choose a worskpace, as we'll be disabling Scan receipts for IOUs soon. A "Smartscanning" transaction should be created.
After a bit, find that receipt in smartscan and populate all field except the merchant (indicate unknown merchant) (I really think this is not feasible)
Fields should be populates in App, and the merchant set to "Unknown merchant" and with a visible error:

The redDot should also be visible in the money request preview:

Report preview:

And LHN (In the parent chat):

Edit the merchant:

The error should disappear from everywhere:

Try with the amount instead of the merchant.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

melvin-bot · 2023-08-29T09:18:40Z

@tylerkaraszewski Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Gonals · 2023-08-29T13:35:09Z

Adding screencaptures tomorrow

tylerkaraszewski · 2023-08-29T22:05:52Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android / native
- Android / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / Safari
- MacOS / Chrome / Safari
- MacOS / Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Screen.Recording.2023-09-01.at.3.31.09.PM.mov

Screen.Recording.2023-09-01.at.3.40.39.PM.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-09-01.at.3.27.29.PM.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-09-01.at.3.24.45.PM.mov

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-09-01.at.3.09.54.PM.mov

iOS

Screen.Recording.2023-09-01.at.3.15.50.PM.mov

Android

Screen.Recording.2023-09-01.at.3.29.42.PM.mov

tylerkaraszewski · 2023-08-29T22:17:50Z

On updating the merchant, the LHN isn't updating to remove the red dot:

tylerkaraszewski · 2023-08-29T23:06:49Z

Hmm, I left this open and came back to it after a while and it seems to have resolved itself. I'm not sure why it took at least several minutes, though.

Gonals · 2023-08-30T06:28:15Z

Hmm, I left this open and came back to it after a while and it seems to have resolved itself. I'm not sure why it took at least several minutes, though.

Hmm. Weird. I've ran the flow a couple of times and it goes away for me in a couple of seconds or so 🤷

Gonals · 2023-08-30T09:46:34Z

Hmm, I left this open and came back to it after a while and it seems to have resolved itself. I'm not sure why it took at least several minutes, though.

Hmm. Weird. I've ran the flow a couple of times and it goes away for me in a couple of seconds or so 🤷

I changed a bit how this works, so it may be faster/better now 😁

Gonals · 2023-08-30T11:00:45Z

Screenshots added!

cristipaval

Code LGTM. Started testing but something is borked in my dev env with Expensiworks. I'll pause this for now as @tylerkaraszewski said he's going to continue testing this soon

tylerkaraszewski · 2023-08-30T21:23:53Z

I'm working on it again. Currently seeing a negative value for the amount:

tylerkaraszewski · 2023-09-01T15:32:06Z

Looks like @MariaHCD ran through this all last night (thanks!) and filled out the remainder of the checklist, so I'm just going to do some testing on one or two platforms and if that looks OK, merge.

tylerkaraszewski · 2023-09-01T16:25:35Z

Seems to be working OK on web. Still a bit of slowness but I'm letting that pass. Going to test on iOS.

tylerkaraszewski · 2023-09-01T17:20:29Z

iOS seems to be resolving this OK. I'm going to approve and merge.

OSBotify · 2023-09-01T17:26:55Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2023-09-01T23:37:23Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/tylerkaraszewski in version: 1.3.62-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

situchan · 2023-09-02T19:41:09Z

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

+ * @returns {Boolean}
+ */
+function hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction) {
+    return hasReceipt(transaction) && !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && !areModifiedFieldsPopulated(transaction);


!isReceiptBeingScanned involves OPEN status as well as SCANFAILED, SCANCOMPLETE,
Should we show RBR for "OPEN" status?

!isReceiptBeingScanned involves OPEN status as well as SCANFAILED, SCANCOMPLETE

Could you clarify this? isReceiptBeingScanned checks for SCANFAILED and SCANCOMPLETE

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

Lines 254 to 257 in ebcc8d0

function isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) {

return _.contains([CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.SCANREADY, CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.SCANNING], transaction.receipt.state);

}

According to this function, !isReceiptBeingScanned includes every status that isn't in CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.SCANREADY, CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.SCANNING].

So hasMissingSmartscanFields can return true if OPEN status because isReceiptBeingScanned is false

I am not saying isReceiptBeingScanned is wrong. It's correct function.

What I am concerned is why should we show RBR when "OPEN" status?

Ah, thanks for clarifying! So I think if we have any missing fields (even if the receipt is in the OPEN state), we would want to show the RBR to highlight any missing fields to the user

MariaHCD · 2023-09-04T07:48:38Z

Coming from https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/38582#issuecomment-1703609122

The RBR still shows even though the merchant, created and amount have been smartscanned.

Tested on staging and it looks like the modifiedAmount and modifiedCreated fields are not set but the state is SCANCOMPLETE so hasMissingSmartscanFields evaluates to true and we show the RBR:

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

Lines 92 to 94 in ebcc8d0

    
           function areModifiedFieldsPopulated(transaction) { 
        
               return transaction.modifiedMerchant !== CONST.TRANSACTION.UNKNOWN_MERCHANT && transaction.modifiedAmount !== 0 && transaction.modifiedCreated !== ''; 
        
           }

Screen.Recording.2023-09-04.at.11.33.32.AM.mov

cc: @Gonals, is it possible the modified fields are not set when the scan completes?

mountiny · 2023-09-04T09:09:02Z

Yeah so for Expense report scans (not IOU), we use the transaction::update, which uses UpdateTranscation and we use the updateOriginal == true https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/blob/1106cb1e48ef2cfcc456cca4fb939277af43e433/auth/command/UpdateTransaction.cpp#L156 here so we edit the original fields

For IOUs we use the EditMoneyRequest and that always updates the modified fields

MariaHCD · 2023-09-04T09:16:40Z

Oh, thanks for pointing that out! What is the reason behind setting updateOriginal == true?

mountiny · 2023-09-04T09:24:56Z

Thats how its was for years 😅

Gonals · 2023-09-04T09:26:38Z

Hmmm. We should probably be consistent here. @mountiny, since you also touched this. Anything agains using Auth::editMoneyRequest for Workspace money requests too? (we can just check it is a free policy, I think)

mountiny · 2023-09-04T09:30:01Z

@Gonals This is for all smartscans though right? I dont think the command is fully ocmpatible with everythign we need for oldDot smartscan

Gonals · 2023-09-04T09:36:06Z

Well, not quite, it'll be for smartscans for Free policies. Those are just Workspaces, so it should just be newdot stuff, I think.

Gonals · 2023-09-04T09:51:01Z

In any case, for now, I'll change the logic in the frontend to check all fields, as it is the safest option now that we are close to the deadline

OSBotify · 2023-09-04T16:22:05Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.62-4 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

allroundexperts · 2023-10-03T00:26:30Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

    if (hasReceipt) {
        receiptURIs = ReceiptUtils.getThumbnailAndImageURIs(transaction.receipt.source, transaction.filename);
+        hasErrors = TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);


We only needed to show the error if the user was able to edit this report. This later caused #27333

hoangzinh · 2023-12-29T08:37:08Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/ReportPreview.js

@@ -115,11 +116,12 @@ function ReportPreview(props) {
    const numberOfScanningReceipts = _.filter(transactionsWithReceipts, (transaction) => TransactionUtils.isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction)).length;
    const hasReceipts = transactionsWithReceipts.length > 0;
    const isScanning = hasReceipts && ReportUtils.areAllRequestsBeingSmartScanned(props.iouReportID, props.action);
+    const hasErrors = hasReceipts && ReportUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(props.iouReportID);


This component hasn't subscribed to Onyx transactions collection, so if there is any update in related Onyx transactions collection, it won't cause re-render here. Causing this bug: #32256

dukenv0307 · 2024-01-27T18:07:13Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

@@ -86,8 +86,10 @@ function MoneyRequestView({report, parentReport, shouldShowHorizontalRule, trans

    const hasReceipt = TransactionUtils.hasReceipt(transaction);
    let receiptURIs;
+    let hasErrors = false;
    if (hasReceipt) {


@Gonals The hasReceipt aslo return true in case of manual request with attached receipt. So we want to show the error if the request is manual request with the attached receipt as well, right?

I don't think we smartscan in those cases

So rather than using hasReceipt (line 90), we should use something like isScanRequest (a way to differentiate manual requests with an attached receipt from a smartscan request), right?

Because using hasReceipt leads to the bug #34997

That seems reasonable, yes.

I think this was added before we implemented the functionality to attach receipts to manual requests, so that wasn't a problem at the time.

I don't think I would return anything new from the server (especially since isScanRequest isn't something stored in the database). The proper way to know if a receipt was smartscanned is if the receipt has one of the CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE states. I think TransactionUtils.hasReceipt(transaction); should be updated to look at that instead. Can you look into doing that?

Also I am thinking that we maybe need two functions...

TransactionUtils.hasAttachment()

TransactionUtils.hasReceipt()

This would cover both cases and be more explicit for cases like this which are only meant to handle one case.

@tgolen

to know if a receipt was smartscanned

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I mean that we need to differentiate manual requests with an attached receipt from a smartscan request as we did in FE side:

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.ts

Lines 51 to 52 in c675857

function isScanRequest(transaction: Transaction): boolean {

// This is used during the request creation flow before the transaction has been saved to the server

Hm, the backend already has several methods that are similar to that. I still don't know that I am following this discussion completely but from the way I see it, the FE code for isScanRequest() needs to be refactored to account for the difference between a smartscan request and a manual request with attachment.

What does the backend have to do with it?

The check for errors is done only when there is receipt and that caused #34997

Gonals added 4 commits August 24, 2023 11:51

Show red dot for missing fields

03f6abe

change branch

1f42544

Merge branch 'main' into alberto-smartErrors

a9baa69

Merge branch 'main' into alberto-smartErrors

a83017a

Gonals requested a review from a team as a code owner August 29, 2023 09:18

Gonals self-assigned this Aug 29, 2023

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team August 29, 2023 09:18

melvin-bot bot requested a review from tylerkaraszewski August 29, 2023 09:18

Gonals added 6 commits August 29, 2023 14:51

Add the red dot everywhere

6bbf2e1

style fixes

6013eb8

improve consistency

907f084

spanish

d1d78c8

lint

a8dac54

prettier

e20f91d

Gonals changed the title ~~[WIP] Display Smartscan errors~~ Display Smartscan errors Aug 29, 2023

Gonals added 5 commits August 30, 2023 08:30

conflicts

fb97405

do not use errors field

f0d2fc3

no need to clear errors anymore

b463346

comments

fa60dd7

lint

afc5d1d

cristipaval reviewed Aug 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

tylerkaraszewski approved these changes Sep 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

tylerkaraszewski merged commit 28a31b8 into main Sep 1, 2023

tylerkaraszewski deleted the alberto-smartErrors branch September 1, 2023 17:21

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 1, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-09-01 #26539

Closed

40 tasks

situchan mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-09-12] [$1000] RBR applies to newly created distance expenses when it shouldn't #26567

Closed

situchan reviewed Sep 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

lanitochka17 mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-09-15] HIGH: Request money - Unable to open a scanned receipt #26590

Closed

6 tasks

Gonals mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2023

Update empty field check logic #26643

Merged

59 tasks

allroundexperts reviewed Oct 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

allroundexperts mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-09-29] [$500] Request money - Scan - When the receipt scan fails, the requested user is prompted to "Enter an amount." #27333

Closed

6 tasks

hoangzinh reviewed Dec 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

hoangzinh mentioned this pull request Dec 29, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2024-01-02] [$500] mWeb - Expense - Red dot in preview does not disappear after filling in Amount and Merchant manually #32256

Closed

6 tasks

mollfpr mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2024

[$500] Scan - Unknown Merchant is shown instead of error when leaving scanning to fail in details page #34438

Closed

6 tasks

dukenv0307 mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-03-07] [$500] [MEDIUM] Scan - Merchant message disappears after deleting receipt and reappears after adding receipt #34997

Closed

6 tasks

dukenv0307 reviewed Jan 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

c3024 mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2024

[PAID] [$500] Expense - "Enter a merchant" is still shown when the expense is paid #34415

Closed

6 tasks

	function isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) {
	return _.contains([CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.SCANREADY, CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.SCANNING], transaction.receipt.state);
	}

	function isScanRequest(transaction: Transaction): boolean {
	// This is used during the request creation flow before the transaction has been saved to the server

Display Smartscan errors #26155

Display Smartscan errors #26155

Conversation

Gonals commented Aug 29, 2023 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 29, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 29, 2023

tylerkaraszewski commented Aug 29, 2023 • edited by MariaHCD Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

tylerkaraszewski commented Aug 29, 2023

tylerkaraszewski commented Aug 29, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 30, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 30, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 30, 2023

cristipaval left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tylerkaraszewski commented Aug 30, 2023

tylerkaraszewski commented Sep 1, 2023

tylerkaraszewski commented Sep 1, 2023

tylerkaraszewski commented Sep 1, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 1, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 1, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MariaHCD commented Sep 4, 2023

mountiny commented Sep 4, 2023

MariaHCD commented Sep 4, 2023

mountiny commented Sep 4, 2023

Gonals commented Sep 4, 2023

mountiny commented Sep 4, 2023

Gonals commented Sep 4, 2023

Gonals commented Sep 4, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dukenv0307 Jan 30, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Gonals Jan 31, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dukenv0307 Feb 1, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Gonals commented Aug 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

tylerkaraszewski commented Aug 29, 2023 •

edited by MariaHCD

Loading

dukenv0307 Jan 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Gonals Jan 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dukenv0307 Feb 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading