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 invoice category #49142

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Sep 25, 2024
Merged

fix invoice category #49142

merged 14 commits into from
Sep 25, 2024

Conversation

Nodebrute
Copy link
Contributor

@Nodebrute Nodebrute commented Sep 12, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #47922
PROPOSAL: #47922 (comment)

Tests

  1. Create two new workspaces
  2. Log out and log in
  3. Go to FAB > Send invoice > Proceed to the confirmation page
  4. Click "Send from" and select any other workspace
  5. On the confirmation page click show more
  6. Verify category field is present
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

  1. Create two new workspaces
  2. Log out and log in
  3. Go to FAB > Send invoice > Proceed to the confirmation page
  4. Click "Send from" and select any other workspace
  5. On the confirmation page click show more
  6. Verify category field is present
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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
Screen.Recording.2024-09-13.at.6.06.17.AM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-09-13.at.6.10.26.AM.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-09-13.at.5.13.28.AM.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-09-13.at.4.03.37.AM.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-09-13.at.3.57.13.AM.1.1.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-09-13.at.3.58.48.AM.mov

@Nodebrute Nodebrute marked this pull request as ready for review September 13, 2024 01:23
@Nodebrute Nodebrute requested a review from a team as a code owner September 13, 2024 01:23
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from rayane-djouah and removed request for a team September 13, 2024 01:23
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 13, 2024

@rayane-djouah 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]

@@ -168,6 +168,10 @@ function IOURequestStepConfirmation({
if (policyExpenseChat?.policyID && policy?.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD) {
openDraftWorkspaceRequest(policyExpenseChat.policyID);
}
const isSender = participants?.find((participant) => participant.isSender);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
const isSender = participants?.find((participant) => participant.isSender);
const senderPolicyParticipant = participants?.find((participant) => participant.isSender);

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -168,6 +168,10 @@ function IOURequestStepConfirmation({
if (policyExpenseChat?.policyID && policy?.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD) {
openDraftWorkspaceRequest(policyExpenseChat.policyID);
}
const isSender = participants?.find((participant) => participant.isSender);
if (isSender?.policyID && policy?.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've noticed that when we change the invoice sender policy, the effect runs twice because the participants change and then the policy changes. This causes the API request to run twice. To prevent this, we need to add a check to ensure the API is called only once:

Suggested change
if (isSender?.policyID && policy?.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD) {
if (senderPolicyParticipant?.policyID && policy?.id === senderPolicyParticipant?.policyID && policy?.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD) {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @rayane-djouah, Even on the latest main branch, the effect runs three times and the API is called three times when we use submit expense flow.

Screen.Recording.2024-09-16.at.3.00.24.AM.mov

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Nodebrute I believe this is a bug. We only need to call the API once when the policy changes, so isOffline, participants, and policy?.pendingAction should be the only necessary useEffect dependencies.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@rayane-djouah With the recent changes, I tested it again, and it’s working fine now.

Nodebrute and others added 8 commits September 16, 2024 02:57
Co-authored-by: rayane-djouah <77965000+rayane-djouah@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: rayane-djouah <77965000+rayane-djouah@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: rayane-djouah <77965000+rayane-djouah@users.noreply.github.com>
@@ -458,6 +458,7 @@ type OptionData = {
tabIndex?: 0 | -1;
isConciergeChat?: boolean;
isBold?: boolean;
isSender?: boolean;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This property is not used, let's remove it

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we remove this property, we get a type error 'isSender' does not exist on type 'OptionData | Participant'. Property 'isSender' does not exist on type 'OptionData'.

Copy link
Contributor

@rayane-djouah rayane-djouah Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Nodebrute Let's update the condition to:

const senderPolicyParticipant = participants?.find((participant) => !!participant && 'isSender' in participant && participant.isSender);

and remove isSender property from OptionData type.

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

@Nodebrute Friendly bump

@Nodebrute
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rayane-djouah Thank you for your patience! I’ve made and tested the suggested changes, and they work well.

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

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
Screen.Recording.2024-09-22.at.5.17.42.PM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-09-22.at.5.56.47.PM.mov
iOS: Native
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-09-22.at.17.14.19.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-09-22.at.17.24.27.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-09-22.at.5.16.37.PM.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-09-22.at.5.17.15.PM.mov

Copy link
Contributor

@rayane-djouah rayane-djouah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM and tests well

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

@stitesExpensify all yours!

@stitesExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

@Nodebrute looks like there is an eslint failure

@stitesExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

/home/runner/work/App/App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx
  667:44  error  'withOnyx' is deprecated. Use `useOnyx` instead of `withOnyx` whenever possible.

@Nodebrute
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stitesExpensify It seems to be failing because of this. Do you think we should address it in this PR?

@stitesExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

The intention and expectation that generally you should fix these errors, even if you didn't introduce the usage.

Based on that comment, I think that we should

@Nodebrute
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stitesExpensify I’ve migrated this to useOnyx! 🎉 It was a bit complicated. I’ve tested it, everything’s looking good on my end. Just so we’re clear, I’m not taking the fall if anything goes haywire 😁

@rayane-djouah can you review this again?

Copy link
Contributor

@rayane-djouah rayane-djouah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM and tests well

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

@stitesExpensify all yours!

@stitesExpensify stitesExpensify merged commit f74fc3a into Expensify:main Sep 25, 2024
17 checks passed
@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.

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stitesExpensify in version: 9.0.41-0 🚀

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

@kavimuru
Copy link

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

@kavimuru This feature requires internet connection

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.0.41-10 🚀

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.

5 participants