Fix approve report partially shows wrong owes amount in LHN #49279

bernhardoj · 2024-09-16T15:25:16Z

Details

When approving report partially, the owes amount on the LHN last message is wrong.

Fixed Issues

$ #48760
PROPOSAL: #48760 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Open a workspace chat
Submit 4 request
Hold 2 of the expenses
Go back to main chat
Approve the report partially
Verify the main chat LHN owes amount is correct (shows the total amount of the hold expenses)

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb 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 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 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.mweb.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.mweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mp4

melvin-bot · 2024-09-16T15:25:23Z

@s77rt 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]

bernhardoj · 2024-09-16T15:27:07Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

@@ -7044,6 +7045,7 @@ function approveMoneyRequest(expenseReport: OnyxEntry<OnyxTypes.Report>, full?:
        key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${expenseReport?.reportID}`,
        value: {
            ...expenseReport,
+            total,


But let's not update the total, as that total is meant for the total that was approved and not for what's left as total to be paid.

@s77rt I still don't understand this comment, can you explain more?

bernhardoj · 2024-09-16T15:29:02Z

Offline test

web.offline.mp4

bernhardoj · 2024-09-16T15:36:35Z

Just a request that we make sure we test proposed solutions with both iouReports and expenseReports, because they are different report types.

For the IOU report, there is no approval. It seems like the flow is quite broken as shown in the video below.

web.pay.mp4

List of problems:

We optimistically create an expense report instead of an IOU report, so all the amount is also in negative.
After the API is successful, the optimistic expense report is deleted, but there is no new IOU report for the held transactions for both users A and B. It's like the BE thrown away all the transactions that were held. Is that how it is supposed to work?
Even if we pay the report partially, the paid system message from the BE writes the full amount.

I'm not sure how to proceed with this IOU report. I only update the IOU report total optimistically, the same way it's done on when approving an expense report.

s77rt · 2024-09-16T16:25:21Z

@bernhardoj Is there a reason why we are not going with the other suggested solution which is to sum the hold transactions?

bernhardoj · 2024-09-16T16:40:53Z

Because it's simpler to subtract between the total instead of iterating through all transactions. I see the other code also relies on total and unheldTotal.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Line 7017 in 7139a40

let total = expenseReport?.total ?? 0;

s77rt · 2024-09-16T16:48:57Z

@bernhardoj Iterating over the transactions is simpler in terms of the needed code. Also, I think the calculated total is not necessary meant to be the new expenseReport.total (it could be the nonReimbursableTotal) - I accidentally reproduced that bug where the total was reverted to the initial expenseReport.total and got the breakdown view (getMoneyRequestSpendBreakdown)

…artial-report

bernhardoj · 2024-09-18T09:03:33Z

I see. Updated.

s77rt · 2024-09-18T13:07:13Z

@bernhardoj Can you please revert the rest of the changes? For this issue all we need is the holdTransactions.reduce((acc, transaction) => acc + transaction.amount, 0) * -1, change

bernhardoj · 2024-09-18T16:33:32Z

There are 3 main changes here:

Passing the iouReport as param to getLastMessageTextForReport
Optimistically update the current expense report total
Correcting the optimistic total of the new expense (holdTransactions.reduce((acc, transaction) => acc + transaction.amount, 0) * -1)

Second, even though the optimistic data is incorrect, we receive the correct data from the BE response. However, the LHN last message isn't updated immediately. The LHN shows the total from the expense report and we get the report inside the function instead of connecting the LHN component with the report.

The first one as explained in my proposal is so the last message is updated dynamically when the IOU report total is updated.

I can revert the 2nd one if you agree.

s77rt · 2024-09-18T19:42:41Z

@bernhardoj I'm not sure I can reproduce the bug you are referring to regarding the last message text. Can you please share a video on that?

bernhardoj · 2024-09-19T04:04:33Z

That's the original bug in the OP, wrong amount is shown, but even after we receive the BE response, the amount is still wrong (not updated). If you only apply 1, then the amount will be updated to the correct one after receiving the BE response.

s77rt · 2024-09-19T08:15:48Z

@bernhardoj I'm not able to reproduce the bug after applying just (3)

Screen.Recording.2024-09-18.at.8.29.27.PM.mov

…artial-report

bernhardoj · 2024-09-19T08:49:56Z

Based on your video, looks like you applied 3 too because on main, the new optimistic report total only accounts for the first transaction. Btw, I just retested and the API doesn't seem to return the IOU/expense report total anymore, so my point is not valid anymore.

Second, even though the optimistic data is incorrect, we receive the correct data from the BE response.

I've reverted the rest to keep this moving forward.

s77rt · 2024-09-19T08:57:44Z

Based on your video, looks like you applied 3 too

I mistyped, I meant that I applied (3) only

s77rt · 2024-09-19T09:21:40Z

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.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

OSBotify · 2024-09-19T13:17:17Z

✋ 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 · 2024-09-19T23:54:55Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/robertjchen in version: 9.0.39-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-09-24T19:04:24Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.0.39-5 🚀

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

fix approve report partially shows wrong owes amount

3bd0049

bernhardoj requested a review from a team as a code owner September 16, 2024 15:25

melvin-bot bot requested review from s77rt and removed request for a team September 16, 2024 15:25

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

optimistically update the iou report total

f19136f

add missing param

e48b744

bernhardoj added 2 commits September 18, 2024 16:00

Merge branch 'main' into fix/48760-wrong-expense-total-when-approve-p…

d526f4a

…artial-report

calc the total amount from the transactions

fa37921

bernhardoj added 2 commits September 19, 2024 15:42

Merge branch 'main' into fix/48760-wrong-expense-total-when-approve-p…

3897b39

…artial-report

revert extra changes

e5ad3d6

s77rt approved these changes Sep 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from robertjchen September 19, 2024 09:22

robertjchen approved these changes Sep 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

robertjchen merged commit 8d645bf into Expensify:main Sep 19, 2024
17 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Sep 19, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-09-19 #49505

Closed

31 tasks

s77rt mentioned this pull request Sep 26, 2024

Modify total of the old report when creating optimistic with holds #46178

Closed

50 tasks

bernhardoj mentioned this pull request Sep 28, 2024

[$250] [Held requests] Partial paying a report causes the wrong amounts to show in the LHN #48760

Open

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix approve report partially shows wrong owes amount in LHN #49279

Fix approve report partially shows wrong owes amount in LHN #49279

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

s77rt commented Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 18, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 18, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 18, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 18, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 19, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

bernhardoj commented Sep 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

s77rt commented Sep 19, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 19, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 19, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 19, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 24, 2024

Fix approve report partially shows wrong owes amount in LHN #49279

Fix approve report partially shows wrong owes amount in LHN #49279

Conversation

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj Sep 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024 • edited Loading

s77rt commented Sep 16, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 18, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 18, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 18, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 18, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 19, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 19, 2024 • edited Loading

bernhardoj commented Sep 19, 2024 • edited Loading

s77rt commented Sep 19, 2024

s77rt commented Sep 19, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

OSBotify commented Sep 19, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 19, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 24, 2024

bernhardoj commented Sep 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

s77rt commented Sep 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

bernhardoj commented Sep 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading