@c3024 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]

Please merge main. Typechecks are fixed on it.

@c3024 I updated.

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 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(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 form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label 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

I think RBR on LHN as well should be fixed within this issue.

@dukenv0307 @Julesssss

I think RBR on LHN as well should be fixed within this issue.

Ah, so that occurs with this PR, but not on main? If so I agree.

No this PR did not introduce it. The behaviour is already there are on main.

No, this PR did not introduce it. The behaviour is already there are on main.

When there is an error shown at a mandatory field, I think it is logical to show RBR on LHN as well. That's why I asked if showing RBR on LHN should be included within the scope of this issue. This PR did not change any behaviour that already existed on main w.r.t. LHN.

@Julesssss

When there is an error shown at a mandatory field, I think it is logical to show RBR on LHN as well. That's why I asked if showing RBR on LHN should be included within the scope of this issue

Okay got it.

@dukenv0307 could you please apply a change to your PR to ensure the error is shown on the LHN?

I am working on it

@c3024 I fixed comment #35871 (comment)

I think once a request is deemed as a scan request, even if we remove the receipt, the error at the merchant field and RBRs on LHN should be same as when there was a receipt.

Here, on member and admin side together there are total three red dots and zero green dots when there is a receipt. When the receipt is removed, IMO there should be the same dots as earlier. But there is one red dot and one green dot. @dukenv0307

cc: @Julesssss

Hi there, can you check to see if this issue might be a regression from this PR?

This PR hasn't been merged yet @Christinadobrzyn . That deploy blocker must be related to another issue.

Daily update: Still working on the LHN RBR issues

@c3024 The reason that leads to the behavior mentioned in this [comment] (#35871 (comment)) is that the condition here return false. So, to fix it, my plan is to remove all the hasReceipt functions that will be used in ReportUtils.hasSmartscanError . Below is the detail:

1. First, update:
   

   App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

   Lines 2243 to 2246 in 0f372c2

   	function hasMissingSmartscanFields(iouReportID: string): boolean {
   	const transactionsWithReceipts = getTransactionsWithReceipts(iouReportID);
   	return transactionsWithReceipts.some((transaction) => TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction));
   	}

   
   to:

function hasMissingSmartscanFields(iouReportID: string): boolean {
    return TransactionUtils.getAllReportTransactions(iouReportID).some((transaction) => TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction));
}

2. Then, update:
   

   App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.ts

   Lines 446 to 448 in 0f372c2

   	function hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction: OnyxEntry<Transaction>): boolean {
   	return Boolean(transaction && hasReceipt(transaction) && !isDistanceRequest(transaction) && !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && areRequiredFieldsEmpty(transaction));
   	}

   
   to:

function hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction: OnyxEntry<Transaction>): boolean {
    return Boolean(transaction && !isDistanceRequest(transaction) && !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && areRequiredFieldsEmpty(transaction));
}

• I tested and it works well. Do you have any feedback about this solution?

Those changes work well. Please include them in the PR. @dukenv0307

Please merge main as well because we need these changes included in this PR #36810 also to test correctly. @dukenv0307

Those changes work well. Please include them in the PR. @dukenv0307

@c3024 I updated and merged main.

Seems like we're nearly there 👍

RBR on ReportPreview disappears when we remove the receipt.

I think we gotta modify ReportPreview as well here.

@dukenv0307

@c3024 I fixed your comment. The solution is to remove the hasReceipt in:

Video:

@dukenv0307 In the test steps, please add a step between 4 and 5 as something like

5. Verify that the error and RBR stay at the 'Merchant' field

and after 'Add a receipt' step as same

Verify that the error and RBR stay at the 'Merchant' field

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.4.45-0 🚀

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.45-6 🚀