Re-adding paywithwallet functionality for manual requests

[bondydaa]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/285824
PROPOSAL: GH_LINK_ISSUE(COMMENT)

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

You'll need to get some things set up first, for internal engineers you'll want to use the cliscripts and probably 2 different accounts to test.

1. Testing with IOU with Withdrawal account only
   accountA - create a verified withdrawal bank account

   Expensidev/Web-Expensify (bondy-fix-latestReleases) $ ../script/clitools.sh generator:bankaccount
   Account email? [[email protected]] [email protected]
   Let's authenticate you
   success
   Deposit or Withdrawal?
     [0] Deposit
     [1] Withdrawal
    > 1
   Validated?
     [0] Yes
     [1] No
    > 0
   Upgraded?
     [0] Yes
     [1] No
    > 0
   Use Stripe Test Acct Information?
     [0] Yes
     [1] No
    > 0
   

   And make sure the wallet is upgraded to Gold

   Expensidev/Web-Expensify (bondy-fix-latestReleases) $ ../script/clitools.sh validator:wallet
   Account email? [[email protected]] [email protected]
   Let's authenticate you
   success
   Success! Wallet account set to GOLD
   

   Then send a money request from another account (accountB) to accountA, in accountA click the Pay with Expensify button and ensure your logs show that we called PayMoneyRequestWithWallet not PayMoneyRequest

   2023-05-24T17:38:59.846456+00:00 expensidev2004 php-fpm: aDdtNU /api.php [email protected] !ecash1.3.17-1! ?api? [info] Processing 'PayMoneyRequestWithWallet' for 'expensify.com' from '73.14.190.93'  ~~ command: 'PayMoneyRequestWithWallet' iouReportID: '476197244592615' chatReportID: '2794916923029281' reportActionID: '6502895055215705994' paymentMethodType: 'Expensify' appversion: '1.3.17-1' pusherSocketID: '467599.1951998' authToken: '<REDACTED>' referer: 'ecash' platform: 'web' api_setCookie: 'false' email: '[email protected]' partnerName: 'expensify.com' browserGUID: '646e4bb3ce7fc' HTTP_CF_BOT_SCORE: '' HTTP_CF_JA3_HASH: ''
   

   Confirmed no errors showed and that the IOU was paid
   

   And verified in the db that rows were properly inserted into the DB

   sqlite> select * from reimbursements where reportid=476197244592615;
               entryID = 2
               created = 2023-05-24 17:38:59
    debitBankAccountID = 1030901
   creditBankAccountID = 1030790
                amount = -700
              reportID = 476197244592615
           debitPosted =
          creditPosted =
                  type = 9
                 state = 4
               details = {"walletToWalletEntryID":3}
           debitFundID =
          creditFundID =
   
               entryID = 3
               created = 2023-05-24 17:38:59
    debitBankAccountID = 1030790
   creditBankAccountID = 1030865
                amount = -700
              reportID = 476197244592615
           debitPosted =
          creditPosted =
                  type = 9
                 state = 0
               details = {"pending":"true"}
           debitFundID =
          creditFundID =
   sqlite> select a.email from bankaccounts ba join accounts a on ba.accountid = a.accountid where ba.bankaccountid =1030790;
   email = [email protected]
   sqlite> select a.email from bankaccounts ba join accounts a on ba.accountid = a.accountid where ba.bankaccountid = 1030865;
   email = [email protected]
   

2. Testing IOU with deposit only bank account and card on line
   Set up accountA so that it only has a deposit-only bank account and a gold wallet

   Expensidev/Web-Expensify (bondy-fix-latestReleases) $ ../script/clitools.sh validator:wallet
   Account email? [[email protected]] [email protected]
   Let's authenticate you
   success
   

   Expensidev/Web-Expensify (bondy-fix-latestReleases) $ ../script/clitools.sh generator:billingcard
   Account email? [[email protected]] [email protected]
   Let's authenticate you
   success
   Should charges succeed?
     [0] Yes
     [1] No
    > 0
   Should we make this a P2P debit card?
     [0] Yes
     [1] No
    > 0
   Should this card be taxable?
     [0] Yes
     [1] No
    > 0
   
   Success
   

   Send an IOU from accountB to accountA

   As accountA, pay via expensify

   Ensure logs show we hit PayManualRequestWithWallet

   2023-05-24T20:48:50.082683+00:00 expensidev2004 php-fpm: aqMQ5y /api.php [email protected] !ecash1.3.17-1! ?api? [info] Processing 'PayMoneyRequestWithWallet' for 'expensify.com' from '73.14.190.93'  ~~ command: 'PayMoneyRequestWithWallet' iouReportID: '2991313505446224' chatReportID: '5596022678305035' reportActionID: '5476717101922320582' paymentMethodType: 'Expensify' appversion: '1.3.17-1' pusherSocketID: '467982.1882253' authToken: '<REDACTED>' referer: 'ecash' platform: 'web' api_setCookie: 'false' email: '[email protected]' partnerName: 'expensify.com' browserGUID: '646e783214211' HTTP_CF_BOT_SCORE: '' HTTP_CF_JA3_HASH: ''
   

   ... :sad-panda: I couldn't actually get this to work b/c of an error trying to talk to the bancorp sandbox URL ...

3. Testing Expense Report Manual Request goes through PayManualRequest

   created a request from a workspace member to the workspace

   Make sure you have a bank account set up, you might likely have to create it manually in new dot and then CQ to set it to a validated state:

   UPDATE bankaccounts SET state=1, addressState='true' WHERE bankaccountid=1030904;

   As the workspace admin go in and click Pay with Expensify

   Verified we made the correct API request

   2023-05-24T22:37:45.411411+00:00 expensidev2004 php-fpm: zS5iPC /api.php [email protected] !ecash1.3.17-1! ?api? [info] Processing 'PayMoneyRequest' for 'expensify.com' from '73.14.190.93'  ~~ command: 'PayMoneyRequest' iouReportID: '8661658847583965' chatReportID: '211217264253708' reportActionID: '3085159208262961606' paymentMethodType: 'ACH' appversion: '1.3.17-1' pusherSocketID: '467839.1944297' authToken: '<REDACTED>' referer: 'ecash' platform: 'web' api_setCookie: 'false' email: '[email protected]' partnerName: 'expensify.com' browserGUID: '646e91b964566' HTTP_CF_BOT_SCORE: '' HTTP_CF_JA3_HASH: ''
   

   We don't actually add the reimbursement though https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/blob/74b89a906c3734cd4991296bee2395efe3434d00/auth/lib/ACHReimbursement.cpp#L1778-L1781 so I can't confirm the data in my DB but can at least verify that log line was hit:

   2023-05-24T22:37:45.471868+00:00 expensidev2004 bedrock: zS5iPC [email protected] (ACHReimbursement.cpp:1779) queue [socket284] [hmmm] Cannot reimburse from Plaid test bank account
   

Offline tests

None specifically since this requires you be connected to the internet to actually settle an IOU.

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

I am not sure if we have testing set up for Policy Expense Chat to get reimbursements from a workspace or not.

If we do then we should test that flow AND the IOU/P2P flow.

We can also have David test this since he currently has an IOU that needs to be paid if we CP this staging.

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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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 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(themeColors.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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

N/A really see tests I guess.

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

[mountiny]

The changes looking good, testing might be quite pain though

[melvin-bot]

@sobitneupane @MariaHCD One of you needs to 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]

[bondydaa]

okay I think this is ready. I tried to test it as best I could but hit a couple bumps along the way but at best I can tell nothing is more broken with this 😅

[bondydaa]

If there are no major concerns from reviewers could someone add the Ready for build label so that we can get a test build created and then possibly have David test it just to be sure the IOU use case actually works? That or we could CP to staging 🤷

[github-actions]

⚠️ ⚠️ Heads up! This pull request has the CP Staging label ⚠️ ⚠️
If you applied the CP Staging label before the PR was merged, the PR will be be immediately deployed to staging even if the open StagingDeployCash deploy checklist is locked.
However if you applied the CP Staging after the PR was merged it's possible it won't be CP'ed automatically. If you need it to be CP'ed to staging, tag a member of @Expensify/mobile-deployers to CP it manually, otherwise you can wait for it to go out with the next deploy.

[mountiny]

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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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(themeColors.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 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

Testing the normal pay money request functionality as the wallet set up is tricky and easier to test on staging

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Cant login due to some cahing issues

Desktop

iOS

Android

1. Testing with IOU with Withdrawal account only

2023-05-25T11:26:41.778268+00:00 expensidev2004 php-fpm: yFjJyk /api.php [email protected] !ecash1.3.17-1! ?api? [info] Processing 'PayMoneyRequestWithWallet' for 'expensify.com' from '10.2.2.1'  ~~ command: 'PayMoneyRequestWithWallet' iouReportID: '6538222255017726' chatReportID: '2560404920965363' reportActionID: '6195450122145065731' paymentMethodType: 'Expensify' appversion: '1.3.17-1' pusherSocketID: '465867.5274239' authToken: '<REDACTED>' referer: 'ecash' platform: 'web' api_setCookie: 'false' email: '[email protected]' partnerName: 'expensify.com' browserGUID: '646f45f1bdcee' HTTP_CF_BOT_SCORE: '' HTTP_CF_JA3_HASH: ''

2. Testing IOU with deposit only bank account and card on line: Could test because the token from Bancorp doesn't seem to be working: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/276537

3. Testing Expense Report Manual Request goes through PayManualRequest

2023-05-25T11:42:50.216805+00:00 expensidev2004 php-fpm: q2HcQd /api.php [email protected] !ecash1.3.17-1! ?api? [info] Processing 'PayMoneyRequest' for 'expensify.com' from '10.2.2.1'  ~~ command: 'PayMoneyRequest' iouReportID: '2192871409124070' chatReportID: '3385806492295728' reportActionID: '1870997723528777203' paymentMethodType: 'ACH' appversion: '1.3.17-1' pusherSocketID: '465894.5278493' authToken: '<REDACTED>' referer: 'ecash' platform: 'web' api_setCookie: 'false' email: '[email protected]' partnerName: 'expensify.com' browserGUID: '646f49ba34cac' HTTP_CF_BOT_SCORE: '' HTTP_CF_JA3_HASH: ''

[mountiny]

I think we can CP and test this properly in staging

[MariaHCD]

Tested scenarios 1 & 3 on web which worked as expected (added to the reviewer checklist as well). Couldn't test 2. because of an issue with the Bancorp sandbox token. I think we're good here 🙏🏼

[OSBotify]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/MariaHCD in version: 1.3.18-2 🚀

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

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

[mvtglobally]

@mountiny @yuwenmemon Can you pls QA this internally

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 1.3.18-2 🚀

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

[bondydaa]

we had David test it and he said it worked though I'm still waiting for confirmation to verify the logs.

[bondydaa]

thread is here for others to follow along https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1685034722453609?thread_ts=1684571441.343629&cid=C049HHMV9SM

[OSBotify]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 1.3.28-2 🚀

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

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 1.3.28-5 🚀

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