[$250] Show the next step for Closed or Approved reports as “No action required” if payments are disabled.

[garrettmknight]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: N/A
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL: N/A
Issue reported by: @srikarparsi
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C06ML6X0W9L/p1726537212622119?thread_ts=1725892977.799399&cid=C06ML6X0W9L

Action Performed:

1. Create a workspace
2. Enable workflows
3. Disable payments
4. Submit an expense on the workspace chat
5. Click into the expense

Expected Result:

The next step for this report should be “No action required” if payments are disabled.

Actual Result:

The next step does not render.

Workaround:

Can the user still use Expensify without this being fixed? Have you informed them of the workaround?

Platforms:

All

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021835986044043862116
• Upwork Job ID: 1835986044043862116
• Last Price Increase: 2024-09-17
• Automatic offers:
• ikevin127 | Reviewer | 104000212

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @ikevin127

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sakluger (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.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021835986044043862116

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @ikevin127 (External)

[koko57]

Hey, I'm Agata from Callstack - an expert contributor group - I can take a look at this issue

[melvin-bot]

📣 @ikevin127 🎉 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

[trjExpensify]

Also assigning @koko57 here to look into this. 👍

[koko57]

either I'm doing it wrong, or I really cannot recreate the bug

Screen.Recording.2024-09-17.at.20.46.53.mp4

@garrettmknight could you check if I'm not missing something?

[trjExpensify]

For closed reports:

• Workflows = enabled
• Delayed submission = disabled
• Approvals = disabled
• Payments = disabled

^^ I validated the above config by going to OldDot and checking for

• Reports > Scheduled Submit > Instantly
• Members > Approval Mode > Submit & close
• Reimbursement > None

2024-09-17_15-18-14.mp4

Then all I did was:

1. Submit an expense on the workspace as the admin
2. I don't see a pay button
3. I do see the incorrect next steps:

[trjExpensify]

Then for the approved reports case:

Workflows = enabled
Delayed submission = disabled
Approvals = enabled
Payments = disabled

^^ I validated the above config by going to OldDot and checking for

Reports > Scheduled Submit > Instantly
Members > Approval Mode > Submit & approve
Reimbursement > None

Steps:

1. Submit an expense on the workspace as the admin
2. I see an Approve button
3. I approve the report and see incorrect next steps about waiting to adding a bank account (notice how it flashes as well).

2024-09-17_15-21-43.mp4

[koko57]

ok, so it's for an expense submitted by admin? So the tests steps are a bit misleading 😅

[trjExpensify]

That's what I did to produce the above, yeah. @srikarparsi can confirm on his steps from the OP when he's on.

[koko57]

ok, I reproduced it now too - so I'm starting digging

[koko57]

@trjExpensify EDIT: I've noticed that right after submitting an expense we get

later we get this one

the latter we get from the OpenReport request

so it's a backend issue

Should the first one stay as it is? Or should it also say “No action required”

[srikarparsi]

Sorry this should be on hold for this Auth PR. This will only be reproducible once the Auth PR hits production

[srikarparsi]

Removed this from hold since https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/12483 has been deployed to production. Also updated the issue body to have easier reproduction steps.

[koko57]

ok, so I'm starting to investigate it

[srikarparsi]

Sounds good, let me know if you have any questions. I think we need to call NextStepUtils.buildNextStep in IOU with the CLOSED status since that status already renders the "No further action required" message.

[koko57]

ok, I will apply this, but won't it be replaced by the response from OpenReport? We get an empty array for that

[koko57]

@srikarparsi now for the nextStep we're generating this message

App/src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts

Lines 139 to 156 in e0b8326

	if (harvesting?.enabled && autoReportingFrequency !== CONST.POLICY.AUTO_REPORTING_FREQUENCIES.MANUAL) {
	optimisticNextStep.message = [
	{
	text: 'Waiting for ',
	},
	{
	text: `${ownerDisplayName}`,
	type: 'strong',
	clickToCopyText: ownerAccountID === currentUserAccountID ? currentUserEmail : '',
	},
	{
	text: `'s`,
	type: 'strong',
	},
	{
	text: ' %expenses to automatically submit',
	},
	];

after we get the response from OpenReport it's cleared bc the response looks like above.

[melvin-bot]

@sakluger, @koko57, @srikarparsi, @ikevin127 Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[ikevin127]

Not overdue, the issue is being actively worked on.

[srikarparsi]

ok, I will apply this, but won't it be replaced by the response from OpenReport? We get an empty array for that

Ah thanks for the looking into this. Do you think you could help with the offline (optimistic) behavior here and I can work on a backend PR that returns the right next steps for this case?

[koko57]

@srikarparsi ok, I will take care of it 🙂

[koko57]

@srikarparsi Just to make sure: we shouldn't display this text for disabled payments, we should display “No action required” instead?

[srikarparsi]

Yup exactly, thanks! Since there won't be a pay or approve button in this case, we should display “No action required”

[ikevin127]

Not overdue, the issue is being actively worked on.

[koko57]

PR ready for review #49837