[Due for payment 2025-07-01] [$250] Time Entry Format Restriction for Per Diem Expenses

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.1.49-6
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @shawnborton
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): #Expensify Bugs

Action Performed:

1. Navigate to the per diem expenses entry section
2. Attempt to enter "1 PM" or "1 AM" in the time field by typing "1".

Expected Result:

The time field should accept both "1" and "01" as valid inputs for 1 AM/PM, formatting it as needed after entry. Users should not be required to zero-pad single-digit hours.

Actual Result:

Only "01" is accepted for 1 AM/PM. Entering "1" results in no response.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Select the officially supported platforms where the issue was reproduced:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Platforms Tested:

On which of our officially supported platforms was this issue tested:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

CleanShot.2025-05-22.at.11.12.03.mp4

Recording.1257.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021927434019130427495
• Upwork Job ID: 1927434019130427495
• Last Price Increase: 2025-05-27
• Automatic offers:
• allgandalf | Reviewer | 107528939
• twilight2294 | Contributor | 107528941

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @OfstadC

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @OfstadC (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021927434019130427495

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @allgandalf (External)

[twilight2294]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Time Entry Format Restriction for Per Diem Expenses

What is the root cause of that problem?

The handleHourChange function is not implemented correctly so the current bug is observed:

App/src/components/TimePicker/TimePicker.tsx

Lines 208 to 210 in f602627

	const handleHourChange = (text: string) => {
	// Replace spaces with 0 to implement the following digit removal by pressing space
	const trimmedText = text.replace(/ /g, '0');

This is the RCA

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We need to update this function to fix the bug :

   diff --git a/src/components/TimePicker/TimePicker.tsx b/src/components/TimePicker/TimePicker.tsx
index 2c3aff898db..b3bb9c68b90 100644
--- a/src/components/TimePicker/TimePicker.tsx
+++ b/src/components/TimePicker/TimePicker.tsx
@@ -261,18 +261,44 @@ function TimePicker(
             // There is an active selection of the second digit
             newHour = trimmedText.substring(0, 2).padEnd(2, '0');
             newSelection = trimmedText.length === 1 ? 1 : 2;
-        } else if (trimmedText.length === 1 && Number(trimmedText) <= 1) {
-            /*
-             The trimmed text is either 0 or 1.
-             We are either replacing hours with a single digit, or removing the last digit.
-             In both cases, we should append 0 to the remaining value.
-             Note: we must check the length of the filtered text to avoid incorrectly handling e.g. "01" as "1".
-            */
-            newHour = `${trimmedText}0`;
-            newSelection = 1;
+        } else if (trimmedText.length === 1 && /^\d$/.test(trimmedText)) {
+            // Handles any single digit '0'-'9'
+            const digit = trimmedText[0];
+            if (digit === '0') {
+                newHour = '00';
+                newSelection = 1;
+            } else if (digit === '1') {
+                newHour = '01';
+                // Check if it was a full replacement of a 2-digit hour field
+                if (selectionHour.start === 0 && typeof selectionHour.end === 'number' && selectionHour.end >= 2 && hours.length >= 2) {
+                    newSelection = 2;
+                } else {
+                    newSelection = 1;
+                }
+            } else {
+                // Digit is '2' through '9'
+                newHour = `0${digit}`;
+                newSelection = 2;
+            }
         } else {
-            newHour = trimmedText.substring(0, 2).padStart(2, '0');
-            newSelection = 2;
+            // trimmedText.length is 0 or >= 2
+            if (trimmedText.length === 0) {
+                newHour = '00';
+                newSelection = 0;
+            } else {
+                let candidate = trimmedText.substring(0, 2);
+                if (/^\d\d$/.test(candidate)) {
+                    // e.g. "05", "12"
+                    newHour = candidate;
+                } else if (/^\d$/.test(candidate)) {
+                    // e.g. "5" became candidate (should be rare here)
+                    newHour = `0${candidate}`;
+                } else {
+                    // Invalid input like "aa"
+                    newHour = hours; // Revert to previous valid hours
+                }
+                newSelection = 2;
+            }
         }
 
         const newHourNumber = Number(newHour);

Result Video

Screen.Recording.2025-05-28.at.1.47.02.AM.mov

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

N/A

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A

[twilight2294]

Updated proposal

Updated with better code

[allgandalf]

Alright, I tested the diff locally, works fine for all the cases with which i tested, with that said, lets proceed with @twilight2294 's proposal here

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed