fix: Set childReportID of the optimistic IOU report action #37232

paultsimura · 2024-02-26T22:24:56Z

Details

When creating a money request, set the report action's childReportID to the optimistically created money request reportID.

Fixed Issues

$ #33114
PROPOSAL: #33114 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA

Offline tests

Same as QA

QA Steps

Test 1:

Go offline
Request money: repeat for each of the manual, scan, and distance requests;
Navigate to the newly created money request report
Verify it's showing the correct data
Go online
Verify the report doesn't disappear after the data is fetched from BE

Test 2:

Go offline
Click "FAB" -> Request money -> Scan
Select a receipt, click "next"
Next to a user, click "Split"
Proceed to create a 1:1 split
Click on the created Split preview
Enter the amount manually and click "Split"
Navigate to the newly created 1:1 money request report
Verify it's showing the correct data
Go online
Verify the report changes to Not Found (this is expected for now because the corresponding BE changes are pending).
Navigate back (to the IOU report)
Click the IOU Preview again
Verify the 1:1 money request report opens and shows the correct data.

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android-compressed.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

chrome-compressed.mp4

iOS: Native

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-02-27.at.00.09.34-compressed.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-02-27.at.00.16.14-compressed.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-02-26.at.23.41.37-compressed.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-02-26.at.23.51.31-compressed.mp4

melvin-bot · 2024-02-26T23:19:38Z

@situchan 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]

paultsimura · 2024-02-26T23:21:19Z

I think we can release without it, but there's a BE fix pending: #33114 (comment)

situchan · 2024-02-29T10:09:42Z

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

expense-distance.mov

expense-distance-fab.mov

expense-manual.mov

expense-manual-fab.mov

expense-manual-scan.mov

expense-manual-scan-fab.mov

expense-scan.mov

expense-scan-fab.mov

iou-manual.mov

iou-manual-fab.mov

iou-manual-scan.mov

iou-scan.mov

iou-scan-fab.mov

send-fab.mov

split-user-manual.mov

split-user-manual-fab.mov

split-workspace-distance.mov

split-workspace-manual.mov

split-workspace-manual-fab.mov

MacOS: Desktop

situchan · 2024-03-03T18:05:52Z

Maybe out of scope but there are various glitches as seen in this video:

Screen.Recording.2024-03-03.at.11.58.30.PM.mov

Empty view

Only background

No header

Some info missing in header

After online:

Here's full repro video: (manual request to new (non-Expensify) user in offline mode)

iou-manual.mov

situchan · 2024-03-03T18:39:50Z

BUG: unavailable workspace on transaction detail header when create expense manual request offline. Same happens on split manual request with workspace

expense-manual-fab.mov

Split:

split-workspace-fab.mov

situchan · 2024-03-03T18:55:45Z

@paultsimura this is blocker.

Bug not fixed: split manual request with a single user (non-Expensify) from FAB

split-user-manual-fab.mov

paultsimura · 2024-03-03T19:56:57Z

@paultsimura this is blocker.
Bug not fixed: split manual request with a single user from FAB

This one is BE as well, similar to the SendMoney.

@cead22 when creating a Split request and calling the SplitBillAndOpenReport API endpoint, we send the stringified splits among parameters. Each split will now contain the transactionThreadReportID and createdReportActionIDForThread that need to be handled on the BE – currently, the optimistic transaction thread is replaced with another from the BE response.

Here's the params example:

{
    "reportID": "1932415687405820",
    "amount": 2200,
    "splits": "[{\"email\":\"paultsimura@gmail.com\",\"accountID\":15528187,\"amount\":1100},{\"email\":\"paultsimura+qa@gmail.com\",\"accountID\":15528255,\"amount\":1100,\"iouReportID\":\"2941200419003018\",\"chatReportID\":\"1932415687405820\",\"transactionID\":\"7451263110636286127\",\"reportActionID\":\"4265162090444479673\",\"createdChatReportActionID\":\"3058872218140896575\",\"createdIOUReportActionID\":\"792942737366932173\",\"reportPreviewReportActionID\":\"7347533532549283559\",\"transactionThreadReportID\":\"5196953162708250\",\"createdReportActionIDForThread\":\"8302969548555128822\"}]",
    "currency": "PLN",
    "merchant": "(none)",
    "created": "2024-03-03 19:54:14.852",
    "comment": "",
    "category": "",
    "tag": "",
    "billable": false,
    "transactionID": "5684861019807192728",
    "reportActionID": "4158501737745037324",
    "policyID": "_FAKE_"
}

situchan · 2024-03-03T20:06:11Z

While it's BE issue, I found interesting thing (possible fix in FE).
I tried to create optimistic chat with same user in 2 devices. On 2nd device, after making online, optimistic reportID (wrong one) is automatically replaced with correct reportID.
Can't this be applied to optimistic transaction report as well?

double.optimistic.chat.behavior.mov

paultsimura · 2024-03-03T20:12:20Z

This looks like a workaround.
The original PR about passing the optimistic thread IDs to BE was intended to fix this very issue, it was just not fully implemented.

paultsimura · 2024-03-03T20:14:21Z

BUG: unavailable workspace on transaction detail header when create expense manual request offline. Same happens on split manual request with workspace

Found a fix, working on it...

paultsimura · 2024-03-03T20:18:20Z

@situchan I think after this PR this code won't be needed anymore 🤔
It was used to create a thread if a moneyRequestPreview didn't have a child report. But now we are creating and setting it optimistically ever time,

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestAction.tsx

Lines 94 to 102 in 6c2abde

    
           // If the childReportID is not present, we need to create a new thread 
        
           const childReportID = action?.childReportID; 
        
           if (!childReportID) { 
        
               const thread = ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread(action, requestReportID); 
        
               const userLogins = PersonalDetailsUtils.getLoginsByAccountIDs(thread.participantAccountIDs ?? []); 
        
               Report.openReport(thread.reportID, userLogins, thread, action.reportActionID); 
        
               Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(thread.reportID)); 
        
               return; 
        
           }

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.tsx

Lines 213 to 219 in c2e24e1

    
           if (!childReportID) { 
        
               const thread = ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread(reportAction, reportID); 
        
               const userLogins = PersonalDetailsUtils.getLoginsByAccountIDs(thread.participantAccountIDs ?? []); 
        
               Report.openReport(thread.reportID, userLogins, thread, reportAction?.reportActionID); 
        
               Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(thread.reportID)); 
        
               return; 
        
           }

situchan · 2024-03-03T20:42:20Z

@situchan I think after this PR this code won't be needed anymore 🤔 It was used to create a thread if a moneyRequestPreview didn't have a child report. But now we are creating and setting it optimistically ever time,

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestAction.tsx

Lines 94 to 102 in 6c2abde

// If the childReportID is not present, we need to create a new thread

const childReportID = action?.childReportID;

if (!childReportID) {

const thread = ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread(action, requestReportID);

const userLogins = PersonalDetailsUtils.getLoginsByAccountIDs(thread.participantAccountIDs ?? []);

Report.openReport(thread.reportID, userLogins, thread, action.reportActionID);

Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(thread.reportID));

return;

}

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.tsx

Lines 213 to 219 in c2e24e1

if (!childReportID) {

const thread = ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread(reportAction, reportID);

const userLogins = PersonalDetailsUtils.getLoginsByAccountIDs(thread.participantAccountIDs ?? []);

Report.openReport(thread.reportID, userLogins, thread, reportAction?.reportActionID);

Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(thread.reportID));

return;

}

They were added in #18760, #25429.
Agree cleanup after we make sure that childReportID in money request action is already coming from backend for any type of money requests.

Login same account on device A & B
Create money request in A
Navigate to transaction detail page in B

paultsimura · 2024-03-03T20:52:19Z

Login same account on device A & B

Create money request in A

Navigate to transaction detail page in B

Do you observe any bug with this? If so – could you please share the recording? I didn't notice anything suspicious

situchan · 2024-03-03T20:57:29Z

Login same account on device A & B

Create money request in A

Navigate to transaction detail page in B

Do you observe any bug with this? If so – could you please share the recording? I didn't notice anything suspicious

I just shared test case. If you confirm that no bug found on all types of requests, you can remove them as unnecessary codes. We don't wanna be affected by any possible regressions from code cleanup.

situchan · 2024-03-03T21:05:07Z

Now we should hold PR for BE fix of split, send cases, right?

paultsimura · 2024-03-03T21:07:13Z

Now we should hold PR for BE fix of split, send cases, right?

I'll let @cead22 decide here. This PR won't break the flow because the behavior we have with splits & send flow is already happening in Prod. But just to be sure the BE fix works well with this PR, we can hold.

paultsimura · 2024-03-03T21:08:34Z

If you confirm that no bug found on all types of requests, you can remove them as unnecessary codes. We don't wanna be affected by any possible regressions from code cleanup.

Tests well, both IOU & expense requests:

Screen.Recording.2024-03-03.at.22.02.56-compressed.mp4

Screen.Recording.2024-03-03.at.22.03.51-compressed.mp4

paultsimura · 2024-03-03T21:09:02Z

BUG: unavailable workspace on transaction detail header when create expense manual request offline. Same happens on split manual request with workspace

Fixed ✔️

cead22 · 2024-03-04T19:23:13Z

@cead22 when creating a Split request and calling the SplitBillAndOpenReport API endpoint, we send the stringified splits among parameters. Each split will now contain the transactionThreadReportID and createdReportActionIDForThread that need to be handled on the BE – currently, the optimistic transaction thread is replaced with another from the BE response.

Thanks for letting me know, I'll make an issue for us to update the back end!

cead22 · 2024-03-04T22:29:49Z

currently, the optimistic transaction thread is replaced with another from the BE response.

I made the issue, and we can wait for that fix to test this PR, but are you sure the backend replacing the value with a different one, and the issue isn't that we're not setting iouAction.childReportID in the client?

If the backend isn't returning a bad value, then things should work with the front end fix, because we'll navigate to the right report based on that front end value, right?

situchan · 2024-03-07T14:11:27Z

Works now after removing node modules again and clearing caches

situchan · 2024-03-07T14:18:53Z

Split scan seems not working. To reproduce, click report preview quickly after scan success

split-user-scan-fab.mov

situchan · 2024-03-07T14:40:34Z

Test Result: (🟢: pass, 🔴: failed, 🟡: pending test)

Request	Manual	Manual (receipt)	Scan	Distance
IOU (from FAB)	🟢	🟢	🟢	New
Expense (from FAB)	🟢	🟢	🟢	🟢
Split with user (from FAB)	🟢	N/A	🔴	New
Split with workspace (from FAB)	🟢	N/A	🔴	N/A
Send (from FAB)	🟢	N/A	N/A	N/A
IOU (from chat)	🟢	🟢	🟢	New
Expense (from chat)	🟢	🟢	🟢	🟢
Split with users (from group chat)	🟢	N/A	🔴	New
Split with workspace (from chat)	🟢	N/A	🔴	🟢
Send (from chat)	🟢	N/A	N/A	N/A

(I keep updating fields upon testing)

situchan · 2024-03-07T15:07:13Z

@paultsimura Let's split testing. Can you please test all above cases (from FAB) for existing report (if you haven't tested)?
I will test non-existing report cases.

paultsimura · 2024-03-07T15:59:11Z

@situchan I've confirmed that all manual requests work fine.
Managed reproduce the issue with scan splits, investigating now...

paultsimura · 2024-03-07T16:10:53Z

@cead22 there is a BE issue with the CompleteSplitBill API call: it doesn't set (and return) the childReportID of the IOU action that we're passing in params. Right after, in an OpenReport call to the BE, the childReportID comes with a different value. And the optimistically created report gets removed:

Screen.Recording.2024-03-07.at.17.02.31-compressed.mp4

Could we get this fixed on the BE side? Seems like so far it's the only API endpoint that's blocking us (if we want to hold for the BE change).

situchan · 2024-03-07T16:13:18Z

Being many issues are held for this PR and already dragged a lot for past blockers, I suggest to merge without waiting BE fix.

situchan · 2024-03-07T16:31:51Z

Maybe out of scope but map preview not showing in split distance request:

situchan · 2024-03-07T16:38:21Z

Tests completed

Result: #37232 (comment)

situchan

All tests pass except split scan.

@cead22 all yours

cead22 · 2024-03-08T17:39:17Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestAction.tsx

@@ -91,15 +89,7 @@ function MoneyRequestAction({
            return;
        }

-        // If the childReportID is not present, we need to create a new thread


Are we removing this because we're always creating transaction threads in the backend, and action?.childReportID will be set to the ID of that transaction thread?

Yes. We've discussed it briefly here: #37232 (comment)

cead22 · 2024-03-08T17:49:41Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

@@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ function getMoneyRequestInformation(
        false,
        currentTime,
    );
-    const optimisticTransactionThread = ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread(iouAction, iouReport.reportID);
+    const optimisticTransactionThread = ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread(iouAction, iouReport);
+    iouAction.childReportID = optimisticTransactionThread.reportID;


Should we add a comment above this line saying why we need to do this? It's not super obvious right away, and it made me wonder if we should be setting this in const iouAction = ReportUtils.buildOptimisticIOUReportAction, but then realized ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread takes iouAction which is created by ReportUtils.buildOptimisticIOUReportAction.

I don't have a good solution for that right now -- it seems like we could generate an optimistic reportID before the calls to ReportUtils.buildOptimisticIOUReportAction and ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread, and pass it to both so we don't have to manually set iouAction.childReportID = optimisticTransactionThread.reportID;, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea.

I'm curious what you think

Yes, unfortunately these 2 are co-dependent: the transaction thread has the iou action's ID as the parent action ID, and vice versa. Also, passing the pre-generated report ID will cause a lot of refactoring of the current methods that use the buildOptimisticChatReport. One possible idea here is to make a separate function that will generate the iouAction, optimisticTransactionThread, and the optimisticCreatedActionForTransactionThread. This way, we'll not be setting the iouAction.childReportID in 4 different places, but in only one function, and will be calling it from those 4 places. It's not perfect either, but will minimize code duplication.

Smth like:

function buildOptimisticIOUReportActionWithTransactionThread(...) { const iouAction = ReportUtils.buildOptimisticIOUReportAction( CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.CREATE, amount, currency, comment, [participant], optimisticTransaction.transactionID, undefined, iouReport.reportID, false, false, receiptObject, false, currentTime, ); const optimisticTransactionThread = ReportUtils.buildTransactionThread(iouAction, iouReport.reportID); iouAction.childReportID = optimisticTransactionThread.reportID; const optimisticCreatedActionForTransactionThread = ReportUtils.buildOptimisticCreatedReportAction(payeeEmail); return { iouAction, optimisticTransactionThread, optimisticCreatedActionForTransactionThread } }

Yeah I thought of that but wasn't convinced it would be better. But on second thought, I do think it's better and we can add a comment inside that function above where we set iouAction.childReportID so people know not to remove it.

The alternative would be to put that comment in 4 places, and we'd have that code duplicated like you said, and nothing prevents people from forgetting to set iouAction.childReportID

I'm good to update to this 👍

Done ✔️

@situchan I've re-tested the 4 different flows that use the 4 different functions that call this new buildOptimisticMoneyRequestEntities function – everything works as expected (except for the known Complete Split BE issue):

Send Money

Request Money

Split right away (the fixed amount split)

Split with Complete Split (the scan split)

paultsimura · 2024-03-10T18:17:59Z

@cead22 while testing, I've noticed a (relatively unrelated) issue with the SendMoney flow – we don't properly pass the optimistic CREATED actions:

Screen.Recording.2024-03-10.at.19.12.42-compressed.mp4

But to fix it, we need another BE fix. Should we hold for it, or can we make it a separate issue?

situchan · 2024-03-10T18:54:24Z

@cead22 while testing, I've noticed a (relatively unrelated) issue with the SendMoney flow – we don't properly pass the optimistic CREATED actions:

Screen.Recording.2024-03-10.at.19.12.42-compressed.mp4
But to fix it, we need another BE fix. Should we hold for it, or can we make it a separate issue?

yes, I noticed that as well but that should not really block this PR to be merged

cead22 · 2024-03-11T17:57:49Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+): [OptimisticCreatedReportAction, OptimisticIOUReportAction, OptimisticChatReport, OptimisticCreatedReportAction] {
+    const iouActionCreationTime = DateUtils.getDBTime();
+
+    // The `CREATED` action must be optimistically generated before the IOU action so that it won't appear after the IOU action in the chat.


💚 great comment

melvin-bot · 2024-03-11T19:03:00Z

@cead22 looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

cead22 · 2024-03-11T19:06:05Z

All checks passed and everything was green when I merged. This wasn't an emergency change

OSBotify · 2024-03-12T18:49:48Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cead22 in version: 1.4.51-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-03-13T19:45:03Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.4.51-3 🚀

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

Set childReportID of the optimistic IOU report action

0b6c83c

paultsimura marked this pull request as ready for review February 26, 2024 23:19

paultsimura requested a review from a team as a code owner February 26, 2024 23:19

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team February 26, 2024 23:19

melvin-bot bot requested a review from situchan February 26, 2024 23:19

paultsimura mentioned this pull request Feb 26, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-03-20] [Violations] [$500] The optimistic transaction thread seems to be incorrect when scanning a receipt. #33114

Closed

6 tasks

paultsimura mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2024

[$500] IOU - Request details page loads infinitely when request is created offline #37247

Closed

6 tasks

Merge branch 'main' into fix/33114-optimistic-threads

0d862fb

Fix unavailable workspace for optimistic thread reports

ab66870

Fix unavailable workspace for optimistic thread reports

1b8e9b5

situchan approved these changes Mar 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from cead22 March 7, 2024 16:42

cead22 mentioned this pull request Mar 8, 2024

[$500] Thread – Draft message disappears after page view finishes loading. #31705

Closed

6 tasks

cead22 reviewed Mar 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

paultsimura added 2 commits March 10, 2024 12:31

Unify the logic for building optimistic Money Request entities

fd7af59

Merge branch 'main' into fix/33114-optimistic-threads

0f96b28

paultsimura requested a review from cead22 March 10, 2024 11:37

paultsimura added 2 commits March 11, 2024 17:23

Merge branch 'main' into fix/33114-optimistic-threads

72a6325

Merge branch 'main' into fix/33114-optimistic-threads

f57d723

cead22 approved these changes Mar 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

cead22 merged commit 6e42e55 into Expensify:main Mar 11, 2024
17 checks passed

melvin-bot bot added the Emergency label Mar 11, 2024

cead22 removed the Emergency label Mar 11, 2024

bernhardoj mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2024

Expense - Two transaction threads in LHN when creating expense with violation offline #38136

Closed

6 tasks

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Mar 12, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-03-12 #38162

Closed

84 tasks

fix: Set childReportID of the optimistic IOU report action #37232

fix: Set childReportID of the optimistic IOU report action #37232

Conversation

paultsimura commented Feb 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

Test 1:

Test 2:

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 26, 2024

paultsimura commented Feb 26, 2024

situchan commented Feb 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024 • edited Loading

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024 • edited Loading

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024 • edited Loading

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024 • edited Loading

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024

cead22 commented Mar 4, 2024

cead22 commented Mar 4, 2024

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024 • edited Loading

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024 • edited Loading

paultsimura commented Mar 7, 2024

paultsimura commented Mar 7, 2024

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024

situchan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cead22 Mar 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

paultsimura Mar 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cead22 Mar 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

paultsimura Mar 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cead22 Mar 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

paultsimura Mar 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

paultsimura commented Mar 10, 2024

situchan commented Mar 10, 2024

cead22 Mar 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 11, 2024

cead22 commented Mar 11, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 12, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 13, 2024

paultsimura commented Feb 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented Feb 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented Mar 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

paultsimura commented Mar 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented Mar 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading