Add Pay as Business option for invoices sent to an individual who is admin of their primary workspace

[VickyStash]

Details

This PR implements the Pay as business option in the App for the individuals who are admins of their primary workspace.
Previous PR with this functionality was reverted.

Fixed Issues

$ #40438
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

1. Login to the app as User A. The user should be the admin of any workspace.
2. Go to FAB -> Select "Send invoice"
3. Send Invoice to the User B (user should be the admin of his primary workspace)
4. Login as User B and open the invoice room from step 3.
5. Tap Pay button and select Pay as business -> Pay elsewhere
6. Verify that:

• the invoice got paid
• the room is turned into B2B invoices room, the title and avatars got updated.

8. Login as User A and open the same invoice room. Verify B2B invoices room looks as expected for the invoice sender as well.

Offline tests

Repeat steps 5-7 from the Tests section.

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Same as in the Tests section

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_receiver.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_web_receiver.mp4

iOS: Native

ios_receiver.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_web_receiver.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web_receiver.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop_receiver.mp4

[VickyStash]

ON HOLD till:

• the API related issue is resolved: [HOLD for payment 2024-07-22] [$250] Invoice - App crashes after receiver deletes all workspaces and sender is unable to send invoice #44818
• UI issue is fixed: [$250 BLOCKED BY #44388] Send invoice - Invoice report appears broken #44992

[VickyStash]

During the testing, I've found the next problem:

1. User A sends an invoice to User B (User A and User B never had invoices between each other before)
2. User B pays the invoice as business.
3. API sends multiple updates to the Onyx of User A. All of the data to let User A know that the invoice got paid, the invoice room got updated to B2B as well as the info about User B policy.
4. The updates are sent in one order but applied in another order. As you can see policy update goes first but applied last (and even if it's send last, it's still applied last, just in case).

Notes to the screenshot:
1 - multiple updates from the API received with the Pusher, policy update goes first in the array
2 - report related updates applied to onyx
3 - policy update applied to onyx

5. Problem: Report-related components are re-rendered only when repor/report actions are updated. The new report's data relies on the policy info which needs to be inserted. But at the moment of the re-rendering, the policy hasn't been inserted yet, which affects the UI display of invoice receiver policy-related data.

I don't think that adding re-renders to report related components when a policy is added is a good idea from the performance side. So I guess it should be possible to affect the order Onyx updates are applied.

The App calls Onyx.update method

App/src/libs/actions/User.ts

Lines 629 to 631 in f81addc

	const onyxUpdatePromise = Onyx.update(pushJSON).then(() => {
	triggerNotifications(pushJSON);
	});

I saw there were some updates in Onyx related to this functionality, here is the PR. And I tested my PR over onyx version 2.0.57 and had the same result.

Screenshot of example using onyx 2.0.57

@paultsimura Since you were working on the mentioned Onyx PR related to Onyx.update operation, maybe you have an idea why policy update is applied last and how can I affect it?

cc @cristipaval

[paultsimura]

Hi @VickyStash, could you please log the pushJSON that goes into Onyx.update(pushJSON) and share it?
Is it a single Onyx.update operation, or a couple of them?

[VickyStash]

@paultsimura pushJSON is the array:

Is it a single Onyx.update operation, or a couple of them?

Single operation with array passed.

[VickyStash]

@paultsimura Do you have any thoughts?

[paultsimura]

Hey @VickyStash, unfortunately, my PR didn't touch the order of the updates in this matter – it was aimed to fix only the race conditions of updates of the same collections. Seems like here you've found yet another Onyx issue.

[VickyStash]

I've investigated the issue above more, and overall when API provides updates to the app it calls Onyx.update with an array of updates.
Inside Onyx.update the updates can be grouped, but overall it's applied using Promise.all, so I can't affect the order updates are applied.
There was an idea to firstly push a new policy, and only then the report-related updates. But as it was internally discussed with @cristipaval we decided to fix this FE issues on the FE side, so this commit 5123bb5 adds updates to fix the problem.

[melvin-bot]

@jjcoffee 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]

[jjcoffee]

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-app-2024-08-07_11.11.42.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-chrome-2024-08-07_11.13.45.mp4

iOS: Native

ios-app-2024-08-06_12.14.37.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-safari-2024-08-06_12.18.58.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

desktop-chrome-2024-08-02_15.32.01.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-app-2024-08-02_15.53.00.mp4

[VickyStash]

Just testing #44818 (which led to the previous PR being reverted) to make sure it's all fixed.

I'm not 100% sure on the expected result when a workspace is deleted but it seems somewhat unexpected that the avatar in the invoice room reverts to the default one (note that all the archived workspace chats retain the workspace avatar):

I also see that after User B deletes all workspaces, invoices from User A sent personally to User B don't show up for User B. Is this something we need to handle here?

@jjcoffee I'm not sure if API supports workspace removal for the invoice rooms. Maybe @cristipaval can confirm the expected behavior.

[cristipaval]

@VickyStash Testing well so far! There's a very minor flicker/glitch immediately after paying where User A's header displays the workspace name (Collect Fresh in the video) for a split-second before displaying the correct header (User B's workspace name). User A is to the right in the video below:

@jjcoffee Yeah, there is a ~second when the new receiver policy isn't written in the Onyx, so the app can't show its info cause it doesn't have it. I'm not sure if I can fix it without workarounds, but I can give it a try. cc @cristipaval

I wouldn't consider this a blocker of this PR. I think it can be fixed in a follow-up.

[cristipaval]

Just testing #44818 (which led to the previous PR being reverted) to make sure it's all fixed.
I'm not 100% sure on the expected result when a workspace is deleted but it seems somewhat unexpected that the avatar in the invoice room reverts to the default one (note that all the archived workspace chats retain the workspace avatar):

I also see that after User B deletes all workspaces, invoices from User A sent personally to User B don't show up for User B. Is this something we need to handle here?

@jjcoffee I'm not sure if API supports workspace removal for the invoice rooms. Maybe @cristipaval can confirm the expected behavior.

I need to deep dive into the backend code to check this.

[VickyStash]

@jjcoffee I've tested the scenario several times on ios+web and on the web+desktop, and there is no disappearing for me.
See the video, maybe I miss something?

Working_example12.mp4

[jjcoffee]

@VickyStash Ah sorry, that was my fault - I didn't explain the pre-requisite fully! The first expense was created on a different session, so in your video you'd have to sign out of User B's account once the first expense is paid before signing back in and proceeding. (I'm assuming it was something to do with there being a fresh session for User B as it happened when I switched test platforms).

So I think the reproduction steps should be:

1. User A sends invoice to User B (personally)
2. User B pays invoice as business
3. User B signs out and back in
4. Repeat steps 1 & 2.

[VickyStash]

@jjcoffee I've tried to logout/login on web, and then on ios and both times it was okay

ex-web-desktop1.mp4

ios_part2.mp4

[VickyStash]

@jjcoffee Could you please check if you still can reproduce that issue?

[VickyStash]

Should the invoice chat be visible under User B's primary workspace if I switch to it via the workspace switcher? I can only access it from the main view ("Expensify") currently, whereas for User A the invoice chat appears under their workspace.

@cristipaval @davidcardoza

1. Should the invoice room chat appear under the workspace chats view for the invoice sender?
2. Should the invoice room chat appear under the workspace chats view for the invoice payer?

[cristipaval]

Should the invoice chat be visible under User B's primary workspace if I switch to it via the workspace switcher? I can only access it from the main view ("Expensify") currently, whereas for User A the invoice chat appears under their workspace.

@cristipaval @davidcardoza

1. Should the invoice room chat appear under the workspace chats view for the invoice sender?
2. Should the invoice room chat appear under the workspace chats view for the invoice payer?

Great question! I'll discuss this internally

[VickyStash]

@jjcoffee According to internal discussion now the invoice room should be visible under the selected workspace for the both - sender and payer

[davidcardoza]

Should the invoice room chat appear under the workspace chats view for the invoice sender?
Should the invoice room chat appear under the workspace chats view for the invoice payer?

Discussed here - https://expensify.slack.com/archives/CSL3XBCCR/p1722944405023039

[jjcoffee]

All working well now from my testing! We've agreed the Onyx flicker should be handled as a follow-up, but I'm not sure about the avatar reverting to the default one when deleting all workspaces - should this be a blocker @cristipaval?

[cristipaval]

but I'm not sure about the avatar reverting to the default one when deleting all workspaces - should this be a blocker @cristipaval?

I think this is also a NAB. Let's not block this PR on it.

[jjcoffee]

LGTM!

[cristipaval]

Thanks a lot for the rigorous testing @jjcoffee! 🙌
Thanks a million to you as well, @VickyStash, for pushing this.

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.0.18-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.18-10 🚀

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