Fix violation shows optimistically for a partial transaction by bernhardoj · Pull Request #39034 · Expensify/App

bernhardoj · 2024-03-27T06:15:58Z

Details

We want to change the behavior so the violations are not added optimistically when it's a partial transaction.

Fixed Issues

$ #38131
PROPOSAL: #38131 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Prerequisites:

User is an employee of Collect workspace.
The Collect workspace has toggled on "People must categorize expenses" for Categories

Go to the workspace policy expense chat
Create a new scan request that will fail
Open the expense report
Verify the request don't show a red dot
Open the transaction thread
Verify there is no Missing category error
Wait until the scan fails. Make sure both amount and merchant is empty.
Edit the description
Verify there is no Missing category error
Edit the amount/merchant
Verify Missing category error shows

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.56.49.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.59.39.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.14.26.48.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.14.31.55.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.57.39.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.14.00.40.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.48.50.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.52.12.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.10.27.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.12.10.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.11.12.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-03-27.at.13.14.18.mov

melvin-bot · 2024-03-27T06:16:03Z

@eh2077 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]

…ransaction

eh2077 · 2024-03-28T14:04:05Z

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

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

0-web-1.mp4

0-web-2.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

0-desktop-1.mp4

0-desktop-2.mp4

eh2077

Tested well and looks good!

cead22 · 2024-03-29T00:46:42Z

+    ): OnyxUpdate | null {
+        const isPartialTransaction = TransactionUtils.isPartialMerchant(TransactionUtils.getMerchant(updatedTransaction)) && TransactionUtils.isAmountMissing(updatedTransaction);
+        if (isPartialTransaction) {
+            return null;


Can we move this logic under let newTransactionViolations = [...transactionViolations]; and return the following if the transaction is partial? I think if we do that we don't need any of the other changes and the logic is simpler

return { onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.SET, key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS}${updatedTransaction.transactionID}`, value: newTransactionViolations, };

That's nice. Updated. Btw, do you think we can just return an empty array instead? Is it possible a transaction already has a violation while it's still a partial transaction?

It shouldn't, but the effect should be the same, right?

If it's not possible then yes, the effect is the same.

cead22 · 2024-03-29T17:16:00Z

+        const partialTransaction = {...transaction, amount: 0, merchant: CONST.TRANSACTION.PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT};
+        transactionViolations = [
+            {name: 'duplicatedTransaction', type: 'violation'},
+            {name: 'receiptRequired', type: 'violation'},


Let's use consts for this. I think we need to add one for duplicatedTransaction

Suggested change

{name: 'receiptRequired', type: 'violation'},

{name: CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_REQUIRED, type: 'violation'},

I have updated the test to not have an existing violation for partial transaction anymore

cead22 · 2024-03-29T23:01:08Z

Conflicts

…ransaction

bernhardoj · 2024-03-30T05:57:02Z

Conflicts solved (conflicted with an import) and updated the unit test to reflect the correct behavior.

melvin-bot · 2024-04-01T16:59:15Z

@cead22 looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

cead22 · 2024-04-01T16:59:58Z

Not an emergency, we have a bug adding this label that we're working on fixing

OSBotify · 2024-04-01T17:05:25Z

✋ 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 · 2024-04-02T11:14:48Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cead22 in version: 1.4.59-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-04-08T10:55:41Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.4.60-13 🚀

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

don't optimistically add the violation if it's a partial transaction

d65a8f3

bernhardoj requested a review from a team as a code owner March 27, 2024 06:15

melvin-bot Bot requested review from eh2077 and removed request for a team March 27, 2024 06:16

bernhardoj commented Mar 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU.ts Outdated

eh2077 reviewed Mar 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU.ts Outdated

bernhardoj added 6 commits March 27, 2024 18:31

move the partial transaciton check to getViolationsOnyxData

f9fc96d

null safety

bdcdc47

add test

39b8c46

Merge branch 'main' into fix/38131-optimsitic-violation-for-partial-t…

cd2dcc2

…ransaction

update partial merchant condition

2c9efa0

fix test case

3a5827f

eh2077 approved these changes Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from cead22 March 28, 2024 14:19

cead22 reviewed Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

return current violation if it's a partial transaction

0612ffd

cead22 requested changes Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

bernhardoj added 2 commits March 30, 2024 13:42

Merge branch 'main' into fix/38131-optimsitic-violation-for-partial-t…

3b43ff6

…ransaction

update test

9e7f5b7

prettier

37a9a6a

cead22 approved these changes Apr 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

cead22 merged commit 4e6bd2d into Expensify:main Apr 1, 2024

melvin-bot Bot added the Emergency label Apr 1, 2024

cead22 removed the Emergency label Apr 1, 2024

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-04-02 #39399

Closed

87 tasks

kbecciv mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2024

Scan request - Unable to add amount to scan failed IOU. "Unknown merchant" shows when scan is failed #39416

Closed

6 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-04-15] [Violations][$500] Scan - Category row shows violation briefly after the scan request is created #38131

Closed

6 tasks

	{name: 'receiptRequired', type: 'violation'},
	{name: CONST.VIOLATIONS.RECEIPT_REQUIRED, type: 'violation'},

Uh oh!

Conversation

bernhardoj commented Mar 27, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Mar 27, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented Mar 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

eh2077 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cead22 Mar 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Mar 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cead22 Mar 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Mar 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cead22 Mar 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bernhardoj Mar 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cead22 commented Mar 29, 2024

Uh oh!

bernhardoj commented Mar 30, 2024

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 1, 2024

Uh oh!

cead22 commented Apr 1, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 1, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 2, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 8, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

bernhardoj commented Mar 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

eh2077 commented Mar 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading