[HOLD for payment 2024-07-23][$250] We're requiring merchants when sending an invoice, when we shouldn't be.

[danielrvidal]

If you go to Send Invoice, and then input a user, we're requiring a merchant name. We should not be requiring the merchant. This is reproducable on all platforms for me.

cc @davidcardoza @cristipaval

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~010f4b3b019ed717d4
• Upwork Job ID: 1804299691171409677
• Last Price Increase: 2024-06-28
• Automatic offers:
• rayane-djouah | Reviewer | 102954435
• bernhardoj | Contributor | 102954436

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @miljakljajic

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

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

Merchant is required for invoice request even though it shouldn't.

What is the root cause of that problem?

This happens after this PR where we change it so the merchant is required when creating or editing the invoice.

App/src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx

Line 346 in 633e708

const isMerchantRequired = (isPolicyExpenseChat || isTypeInvoice) && (!isScanRequest || isEditingSplitBill) && shouldShowMerchant;

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepMerchant.tsx

Line 67 in 633e708

const isMerchantRequired = ReportUtils.isReportInGroupPolicy(report) || isTypeInvoice || transaction?.participants?.some((participant) => !!participant.isPolicyExpenseChat);

Previously, the invoice was only required in edit invoice detail, but the PR above makes it consistent so creating an invoice also requires a merchant.

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

Because we do not want to make it required, we need to "revert" that PR. We will remove the invoice type condition from both of these codes

App/src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx

Line 346 in 633e708

const isMerchantRequired = (isPolicyExpenseChat || isTypeInvoice) && (!isScanRequest || isEditingSplitBill) && shouldShowMerchant;

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepMerchant.tsx

Line 67 in 633e708

const isMerchantRequired = ReportUtils.isReportInGroupPolicy(report) || isTypeInvoice || transaction?.participants?.some((participant) => !!participant.isPolicyExpenseChat);

isPolicyExpenseChat is false for invoice, however, ReportUtils.isReportInGroupPolicy is true even for invoice because it's part of a policy.

To fix it, we have 2 options:

1. Replace isReportInGroupPolicy with isExpenseRequest. This condition is stricter by checking whether the request is an expense request or not which is true for workspace expense requests, but not for invoice or IOU request.

2. Add !ReportUtils.isInvoiceRequest(report) && condition so it only could be true if it's not an invoice request.

const isMerchantRequired = !ReportUtils.isInvoiceRequest(report) && (ReportUtils.isReportInGroupPolicy(report) || transaction?.participants?.some((participant) => !!participant.isPolicyExpenseChat));

isInvoiceRequest will be a new function that is similar to isExpenseRequest

function isInvoiceRequest(report: OnyxInputOrEntry<Report>): boolean {
    if (isThread(report)) {
        const parentReportAction = ReportActionsUtils.getParentReportAction(report);
        const parentReport = allReports?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${report?.parentReportID}`];
        return isInvoiceReport(parentReport) && !isEmptyObject(parentReportAction) && ReportActionsUtils.isTransactionThread(parentReportAction);
    }
    return false;
}

[davidcardoza]

Damn, it looks like the other PR linked was created to make it so that a merchant name is required on invoices. Unfortunately the invoicing project team didn't catch it because it never passed through the project Slack channel or the project board.

That proposal looks good @bernhardoj

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~010f4b3b019ed717d4

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @miljakljajic (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.

[rayane-djouah]

@bernhardoj's proposal looks good to me

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @techievivek, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

@miljakljajic, @techievivek, @rayane-djouah Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[rayane-djouah]

@techievivek - Friendly bump ^^

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[davidcardoza]

No update on this, until @techievivek comes back

[melvin-bot]

@miljakljajic, @techievivek, @rayane-djouah Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[rayane-djouah]

@miljakljajic - Can we assign another CME as @techievivek is OOO?

[melvin-bot]

📣 @rayane-djouah 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

📣 @bernhardoj 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[bernhardoj]

PR is ready

cc: @rayane-djouah

[miljakljajic]

What will the payment date for this one be?

[bernhardoj]

It's deployed to prod 3 days ago, so it should be 23 July

[cristipaval]

Not overdue

[miljakljajic]

Both contributors paid!