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

Create optimistic report when approving/paying for report with hold expenses #42573

Conversation

war-in
Copy link
Contributor

@war-in war-in commented May 24, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #41652
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  1. Have report with few expenses (one or two) on hold and the rest (at least one) normal.
  2. Enable Force offline in Troubleshooting (to better see what happens when slow backend replies).
  3. Approve only part of the report.
  4. See that number of expenses changed for approved report (and held expenses disappeared).
  5. See that new report shown at the bottom of the chat with correct expense number and value from one of the expenses.
  6. Click on that report and verify that inside are held expenses.
  7. Disable Force offline.
  8. See that new report changed its value to the sum of all held expenses.

Offline tests

QA Steps

  1. Have report with few expenses (one or two) on hold and the rest (at least one) normal.
  2. Enable Force offline in Troubleshooting (to better see what happens when slow backend replies).
  3. Approve only part of the report.
  4. See that number of expenses changed for approved report (and held expenses disappeared).
  5. See that new report shown at the bottom of the chat with correct expense number and value from one of the expenses.
  6. Click on that report and verify that inside are held expenses.
  7. Disable Force offline.
  8. See that new report changed its value to the sum of all held expenses.

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 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 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
ios.native.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios.web.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-07-24.at.16.15.15.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Desktop.video.mov

@war-in
Copy link
Contributor Author

war-in commented Jun 14, 2024

TODO: add optimisticHoldReportExpenseActionIDs as param to API

Done

@robertjchen robertjchen merged commit 2a9134d into Expensify:main Jul 25, 2024
17 of 21 checks passed
@war-in
Copy link
Contributor Author

war-in commented Jul 25, 2024

Oh, I prepared changes for the old report value 😅

@war-in
Copy link
Contributor Author

war-in commented Jul 25, 2024

I assume we're fine with not changing them then

@robertjchen
Copy link
Contributor

@war-in new PR welcome 😄

@war-in
Copy link
Contributor Author

war-in commented Jul 25, 2024

That's only 10 lines of code but I can create it 👍

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

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

@war-in
Copy link
Contributor Author

war-in commented Jul 25, 2024

@robertjchen @ZhenjaHorbach could you jump in and verify the PR? 🙏

@ZhenjaHorbach
Copy link
Contributor

PR

Yeah
Sure !

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/robertjchen in version: 9.0.13-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.0.13-4 🚀

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

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor

Two issues were created coming from this PR:

  1. [HOLD for payment 2024-08-13] [$250] [Held requests] Partially approved expenses are not GBR'ed in LHN #45902 where the issue was that the offline behaviour did not match the offline behaviour, which was resolved with a simple fix of passing the necessary optimistic data. More details in the selected proposal.
  2. [HOLD for payment 2024-08-14] [$250] Hold - Missing "Unhold" on the report header of held expense after it is moved to new report offline #46371 where the issue was that the necessary data wasn't passed to the optimisticExpenseReport and optimisticExpenseReportPreview which resulted in the canUnholdRequest boolean returning false. This was resolved with a simple fix of passing the necessary optimistic data such that the canUnholdRequest boolean would return true in that specific scenario. More details in the selected proposal.

@brunovjk
Copy link
Contributor

This PR introduced an issue:
#46600 The issue occurred because the app attempted to link to an action that was deleted or moved. This was resolved by clearing the reportActionID when the linked action is deleted or moved. More details can be found in the proposal.

chatReport.reportID,
chatReport.policyID ?? iouReport.policyID ?? '',
recipient.accountID ?? 1,
(firstHoldTransaction?.amount ?? 0) * -1,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This argument is for the total. We should have summed up the hold transactions. (Coming from #48760)

chatReport.reportID,
chatReport.policyID ?? iouReport.policyID ?? '',
recipient.accountID ?? 1,
(firstHoldTransaction?.amount ?? 0) * -1,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When we edit the amount, the new amount is stored in modifiedAmount. This caused #49269

const {holdReportActions, holdTransactions} = getHoldReportActionsAndTransactions(iouReport.reportID);
const firstHoldTransaction = holdTransactions[0];

const optimisticExpenseReport = ReportUtils.buildOptimisticExpenseReport(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should create the optimistic data that matches with the data from our BE.
This caused #49754 more detailed:
#49754 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should cover a case where it's an IOU report. Otherwise, it will build a wrong optimistic report, causing LHN to display a wrong message. More details here #49274 (comment)

};
});

const optimisticData: OnyxUpdate[] = [
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Coming from #52696, We need to reset pending action in all places if we use it in optimistic data.

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.