Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix the optimistic GBR for chats with money requests #38675

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Apr 4, 2024

Conversation

paultsimura
Copy link
Contributor

@paultsimura paultsimura commented Mar 20, 2024

Details

This PR fixes the optimistic GBR calculation for the chats that have a money request that requires attention.

Fixed Issues

$ #38425
PROPOSAL: #38425 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA

Offline tests

Same as QA

QA Steps

Test 1:

  1. Request money from your own workspace;
  2. Verify the workspace chat has a green dot in LHN;
  3. Open the money request;
  4. Go offline;
  5. Modify the request amount;
  6. Verify the workspace chat still has a green dot in LHN;
  7. Go online;
  8. Verify the workspace chat still has a green dot in LHN;

Test 2:

Pre-requisites:

  • Be an employee of a Collect workspace with the Scheduled Submit: disabled;
  • Have no pending money request with the said workspace;
  1. Go offline;
  2. Request money from the said workspace;
  3. Verify the workspace chat has a green dot in LHN;
  4. Go online;
  5. Verify the workspace chat still has a green dot in LHN;

Test 3:

Pre-requisites:

  • Be an employee of a Collect workspace with the Scheduled Submit: enabled;
  • Have no pending money request with the said workspace;
  1. Go offline;
  2. Request money from the said workspace;
  3. Verify the workspace chat has no green dot in LHN;
  4. Go online;
  5. Verify the workspace chat still has no green dot in LHN;

Test 4:

  1. Log in as a user A and B on different devices;
  2. Request money from each other so that there is a Money Report with 2 requests, e.g.:
    • User A: request $20
    • User B: request $10
  3. Do the following operations as the User A:
  4. Verify the chat with B has no green dot in LHN;
  5. Go offline;
  6. Edit your money request amount to $5
  7. Verify the chat with B now has the GBR as you own the money;
  8. Go online and verify the GBR remains
  9. Go offline;
  10. Request money from user B again, so that the total amount requested by you is bigger than that requested from you (e.g. request another $10).
  11. Verify the chat with B now has no GBR as you don't own the money;
  12. Go online and verify the GBR doesn't appear
  13. Go offline;
  14. Remove your last money request so that the total amount requested by you is now smaller than that requested from you.
  15. Verify the chat with B now has the GBR as you own the money again;
  16. Go online and verify the GBR remains

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS: Desktop
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (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
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • 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
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • 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(theme.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 the PR modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
  • 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android16.27.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
chrome16.30.mp4
iOS: Native
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-03-16.at.16.25.5416.26.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-03-16.at.16.33.1916.33.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-03-20.at.15.40.0015.42.mp4
Screen.Recording.2024-03-20.at.16.01.2516.02.mp4
Screen.Recording.2024-03-16.at.16.15.3616.16.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-03-16.at.16.17.4516.18.mp4

@paultsimura paultsimura marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2024 15:10
@paultsimura paultsimura requested a review from a team as a code owner March 20, 2024 15:10
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from situchan and removed request for a team March 20, 2024 15:10
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 20, 2024

@situchan 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]

@paultsimura
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mountiny I'm trying to fix the optimistic GBR calculation for different flows as it's been broken recently. Could you please check the Test section and maybe add some flows that I missed?

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

In general this looks good to me, you could have more tests for once the Draft report is submitted, then approved and paid for example. Then when bank account is missing and needs to be added in order for the employee to be reimbursed. There has been some unit tests for parts of it I believe

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

@paultsimura one comment for the test2

Are you disabling the delayed submission from newDot or oldDot?

We are in middle of migrating to Instant submit so in Newdot, actually having the Delayed submission off should mean new report is created in Submitted/ Processing state in which case there would be no GBR.

Can you confirm if the autoReportingFrequency is set to Instant for you when you toggle the delayed submission off?

@paultsimura
Copy link
Contributor Author

Are you disabling the delayed submission from newDot or oldDot?

It's from OD:

image

The autoReportingFrequency is still weekly for the employee. Maybe we should delegate this case of GBR to the authors of the migration as it's a new feature?

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

Cool ok I think we can handle that edge case later as we are in better spot with the scheduled submit instant

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

Please reassign as I am going on vacation

@akinwale
Copy link
Contributor

I am available to review this as C+.

@mountiny mountiny requested review from akinwale and removed request for situchan March 31, 2024 19:52
@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

@paultsimura can you please resolve the conflicts? Thank you!

# Conflicts:
#	src/libs/ReportUtils.ts
@paultsimura
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done, all yours @akinwale ✔️

@akinwale
Copy link
Contributor

akinwale commented Apr 3, 2024

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: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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(theme.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 the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • 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

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native

38675-ios-native

iOS: mWeb Safari

38675-ios-safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web-38675-1.mp4
web-38675-2.mp4
web-38675-3.mp4
38675-desktop-web.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
38675-desktop-web.mp4

@akinwale
Copy link
Contributor

akinwale commented Apr 3, 2024

@paultsimura There's an issue with steps 5 through 7 in Test 4. The GBR does not display for user A when offline (starts from around the 0:59 mark in the video).

Screen.Recording.2024-04-03.at.07.33.12.mp4

@paultsimura
Copy link
Contributor Author

@paultsimura There's an issue with steps 5 through 7 in Test 4. The GBR does not display for user A when offline

This is because your requests are in USD while the IOU Report is in NGN. Unfortunately, we do not do the currency conversion and calculation offline.

Please try performing the same test in NGN only:

Screen.Recording.2024-04-03.at.09.15.4309.16.mp4

Copy link
Contributor

@akinwale akinwale left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from hayata-suenaga April 3, 2024 07:28
Copy link
Contributor

@hayata-suenaga hayata-suenaga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟢 @paultsimura thank you so much for your work

@hayata-suenaga hayata-suenaga merged commit 8614ce4 into Expensify:main Apr 4, 2024
16 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Apr 8, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/hayata-suenaga in version: 1.4.61-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Apr 8, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/hayata-suenaga in version: 1.4.61-0 🚀

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


const policy = getPolicy(iouReport.policyID);
const shouldBeManuallySubmitted = PolicyUtils.isPaidGroupPolicy(policy) && !policy?.harvesting?.enabled;
if (shouldBeManuallySubmitted || PolicyUtils.isPolicyAdmin(policy)) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This line is causing problems whenever I am trying to edit anything from Admin side. The collect policy has scheduled submit on.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.4.61-8 🚀

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants