allow money requests on instantly submitted reports #36997

rojiphil · 2024-02-21T05:53:47Z

Details

This PR allows handling money requests for expense reports when instant submit auto-reporting frequency is set for the policy and when the expense report itself is in submitted state.
Specifically, we allow:

To place money requests from Expense Reports.
Delete money requests from Expense Report/Transaction Thread Report

Fixed Issues

$ #35814
PROPOSAL: #35814 (comment)

Test

Precondition:

Use a Collect Workspace
Set scheduled submit frequency to Instant

Steps:

Create a new Expense Report with one manual money request.
Navigate to the Expense Report.
Verify that on clicking composer FAB button, the menu displays Request money option. —> Test 1
Click on Request money and generate a new manual request.
Verify that the newly generated Money Request action is generated in the same Expense Report —> Test 2
Verify that the Context Menu for the generated Money Request action displays Delete request option —> Test 3
Click on the generated Money Request action to navigate to the Transaction Thread Report of the money request.
Verify that the header menu displays Delete request option —> Test 4

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as the Steps in Tests Section.

QA Steps

Same as the Steps in Tests Section.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

MacOS: Safari

35814-web-safari.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

35814-mweb-safari.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

35814-desktop.mp4

iOS: Native

35814-native-ios.mp4

Android: Native

35814-native-android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

35814-mweb-chrome.mp4

melvin-bot · 2024-02-21T06:14:14Z

@Ollyws 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]

rojiphil · 2024-02-21T06:15:27Z

@Ollyws
In addition to the scenarios mentioned in the proposal, I also noticed an additional use case for Delete request from within the context menu of the money request action.
I have added that too in this PR.
I have completed the PR checklist. The PR tests well too.
All yours for review.

Ollyws · 2024-02-22T13:41:40Z

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 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

Android: Native

01_Android_Native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

02_Android_Chrome.mp4

iOS: Native

03_iOS_Native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

04_iOS_Safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

05_MacOS_Chrome.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

06_MacOS_Desktop.mp4

Ollyws

LGTM.

Beamanator

It's looking like we're really close, but I have a few comments & one slightly larger concern, just to make sure we're not breaking anything - specifically related to optimistically creating a draft report which we should never do IFF the report is on an "Instant submit" policy

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Beamanator · 2024-02-23T14:50:30Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

+        // If the linked expense report on paid policy is not draft and not instantly submitted, we need to create a new draft expense report
+        if (iouReport && isFromPaidPolicy && !ReportUtils.isDraftExpenseReport(iouReport) && !ReportUtils.isInstantSubmittedState(iouReport)) {


Hmm this scares me a little bit... Like are we sure "we need to create a new draft expense report" in this case? I think no, because if we're requesting money on an expense report on an instant submit policy, we should be creating a submitted report (b/c "instant submit"), not a draft report 🤔

Do we have a manual test that covers this exact case? If so, are we sure this is working correctly?

This is working correctly as Step 1 of our test case involves creating a new expense report.

But I think creating a new expense report is a little tricky too. In online scenarios, the BE would send back the submitted state and it is all good in FE. But, in offline scenarios with instant reporting frequency it does not seem right to create a new draft expense report. However, it also does not seem right to optimistically generate a submitted report as the instant reporting frequency may have been changed to something else in BE when the user is offline. So, ideally, it may be better to wait for the user to come online and let BE decide the right thing to do. Maybe the way to resolve this is to hide the Submit button in the report preview and also in the expense report header in offline scenarios when it is instant reporting frequency. Or maybe hide the submit buttons at all times for instant reporting frequency.

But this looks like a separate issue and may need some more thought through. Do you think creating a separate issue for this is better? We have already extended this issue’s scope with the handling of delete money request issues.
cc @Beamanator

Maybe the way to resolve this is to hide the Submit button in the report preview and also in the expense report header in offline scenarios when it is instant reporting frequency. Or maybe hide the submit buttons at all times for instant reporting frequency.

This should be the case - Are we currently able to see the Submit button when the auto reporting frequency is instant? If so, please let me know and I'll definitely make a new bug report for that :D 👍

For the online / offline cases...

If we know (before going offline) that the auto reporting frequency is instant, we DO need to optimistically auto-submit the report - we want to assume that the front & backends are sync'd, the "weird" scenario would be if they aren't.

Do you know exactly how this code in this line is hit? Is it really only when we're offline? I haven't taken the time to check but I'm happy to if you're not 100% certain 👍

1 If we know (before going offline) that the auto reporting frequency is instant, we DO need to optimistically auto-submit the report - we want to assume that the front & backends are sync'd, the "weird" scenario would be if they aren't.
2. Do you know exactly how this code in this line is hit? Is it really only when we're offline? I haven't taken the time to check but I'm happy to if you're not 100% certain 👍

The code is hit in both offline and online scenarios. Offline, this will make the Submit button appear and will go off only when the BE responds with a submitted report. For online, the Submit button is displayed for a short interval until the BE sends back the response. So, it makes sense to me too to optimistically auto-submit the report in this case.
To solve this, we can optimistically set the report to submitted for instant reporting frequency during the optimistic creation of an expense report here as shown below.
@Ollyws Does this change make sense?

const isOnInstantSubmitPolicy = policy && PolicyUtils.isInstantSubmitEnabled(policy as OnyxEntry<Policy>); // Define the state and status of the report based on whether the policy is free or with `instant` reporting frequency const stateNum = isOnInstantSubmitPolicy ? CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED : CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.OPEN; const statusNum = isOnInstantSubmitPolicy ? CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.SUBMITTED : CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.OPEN;

Agreed - and it looks like this is actually already being taken care of in https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/36388/files#diff-577fcc5f3a5e4930916ff310e61c38edfa093792fe3ab55b9a30d2aecd8811db

Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <dabeamanator@gmail.com>

…-money

rojiphil · 2024-02-26T17:29:23Z

This should be the case - Are we currently able to see the Submit button when the auto reporting frequency is instant? If so, please let me know and I'll definitely make a new bug report for that :D 👍

Yes, we are able to see Submit button. Please find the steps and the video for the same. And I have also proposed a solution for the same.
If the solution is acceptable, maybe we can increase the bounty here itself and do this here as we already have the context here and it could also help things move faster. Do you think this is fine? Or do we take this up in a new issue itself?
cc @Beamanator @Ollyws

Proposal

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

Name: Submit button should be hidden when instant reporting frequency is set.
Steps:

Use OD to set Scheduled Submit reporting frequency to Manual.
As an Employee, generate a Money Request within a collect workspace.
Verify that Submit button is displayed in Report Preview of the Workspace Chat.
Navigate to the Expense Report and verify that Submit button is displayed in the header.
Go to OD and set Scheduled Submit reporting frequency to Instant.
Reload the ND to ensure that Instant reporting frequency is set locally.
Verify the presence of Submit button in Report Preview and in the header of Expense Report

Actual Behaviour: Submit button is not hidden when instant reporting frequency is set.
Expected Behaviour: Submit button should be hidden in step (7) when instant reporting frequency is set.

Test Video - Actual Behaviour

submit-issue.mp4

What is the root cause of that problem?

Submit button is displayed in two places: a) Report Preview action in Workspace Chat and b) Header of the Expense Report. And, we have not yet considered instant report frequency while showing/hiding of the submit button. This is the root cause.

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

The Submit button on the header of expense report gets displayed here for large screen devices and here for small screen devices. We need to additionally check here for instant reporting frequency to decide on show/hide of the Submit button like this:

const shouldShowSubmitButton = isDraft && !isOnInstantSubmitPolicy && reimbursableSpend !== 0;

Further, for Report Preview, the Submit button get’s displayed here and the decision to show/hide submit button happens here. Here too, we need to consider instant reporting frequency to decide on show/hide of the submit button like this here.

const shouldShowSubmitButton = isDraftExpenseReport && !isOnInstantSubmitPolicy && reimbursableSpend !== 0;

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Beamanator · 2024-02-27T14:43:23Z

@rojiphil - about the Submit button, let's deal with that in a separate PR, but see my comments about this PR here

Beamanator

I think I'm pretty happy with how this turned out, I want to just keep it unmerged for a few minutes to get some feedback in the slack thread

OSBotify · 2024-02-27T14:54:56Z

✋ 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 · 2024-02-29T00:07:07Z

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

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

OSBotify · 2024-02-29T23:31:35Z

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

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

allow money requests on instantly submitted reports

feaa3f7

rojiphil marked this pull request as ready for review February 21, 2024 06:14

rojiphil requested a review from a team as a code owner February 21, 2024 06:14

melvin-bot bot requested review from Ollyws and removed request for a team February 21, 2024 06:14

rojiphil mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-03-07] [$500] [HIGH] [Instant Submit] for Collect: Allow Request Money from expense reports on paid, instant submit workspaces #35814

Closed

Ollyws approved these changes Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Beamanator February 22, 2024 13:45

Beamanator reviewed Feb 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

rojiphil and others added 5 commits February 24, 2024 08:57

Update src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

c202d3c

Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <dabeamanator@gmail.com>

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into 35814-instant-submit-allow-request…

63069de

…-money

spelling correction - subtract

9a71d71

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into 35814-instant-submit-allow-request…

292f358

…-money

better function name and check for isExpenseReport too

fc4297d

Beamanator approved these changes Feb 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

Beamanator merged commit 174a032 into Expensify:main Feb 27, 2024
19 checks passed

Beamanator mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2024

Improve creating expenses on Collect with Instant Submit #36388

Merged

57 tasks

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-02-28 #37459

Closed

91 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

allow money requests on instantly submitted reports #36997

allow money requests on instantly submitted reports #36997

rojiphil commented Feb 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 21, 2024

rojiphil commented Feb 21, 2024

Ollyws commented Feb 22, 2024

Ollyws left a comment

Beamanator left a comment

Beamanator Feb 23, 2024

rojiphil Feb 24, 2024

Beamanator Feb 26, 2024

Beamanator Feb 26, 2024

rojiphil Feb 26, 2024

Beamanator Feb 27, 2024

rojiphil commented Feb 26, 2024

Beamanator commented Feb 27, 2024

Beamanator left a comment

OSBotify commented Feb 27, 2024

OSBotify commented Feb 29, 2024

OSBotify commented Feb 29, 2024

		// If the linked expense report on paid policy is not draft and not instantly submitted, we need to create a new draft expense report
		if (iouReport && isFromPaidPolicy && !ReportUtils.isDraftExpenseReport(iouReport) && !ReportUtils.isInstantSubmittedState(iouReport)) {

allow money requests on instantly submitted reports #36997

allow money requests on instantly submitted reports #36997

Conversation

rojiphil commented Feb 21, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Test

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 21, 2024

rojiphil commented Feb 21, 2024

Ollyws commented Feb 22, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Ollyws left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Beamanator left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Beamanator Feb 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rojiphil Feb 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Beamanator Feb 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Beamanator Feb 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rojiphil Feb 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Beamanator Feb 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rojiphil commented Feb 26, 2024

Proposal

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

What is the root cause of that problem?

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

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Beamanator commented Feb 27, 2024

Beamanator left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Feb 27, 2024

OSBotify commented Feb 29, 2024

OSBotify commented Feb 29, 2024

rojiphil commented Feb 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading