[HOLD for payment 2024-04-15] Improve the UI when you click into an expense from a one-expense chat

[NikkiWines]

Coming from this Slack discussion:
Slack room: #vip-split

Problem

Currently, the expense shows the same level of detail in the main chat as it does when you click into it. This feels confusing, to offer users the option to click into something (where presumably they're looking for more detail), but then only show the same level of detail that they've already seen. There are also currently two levels of clicking into an expense that you can do, but both show the same level of detail.

Here's the current flow:

Why is this important?

It's not polished, it feels like unexpected behavior for an app to show you the same thing twice.

Solution

Summary:
For single-expense reports, we:

• Combine the report and expense view into one mashup view with report actions in the header and expense details in the body
• Comments on ☝️ that view are attached to the specific expense to keep things sensible if in the rare occasion this report transitions to a multi-expense report
• See Shawn's screenshots here for the mocks

Corresponding internal issue: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/342922

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01793b9557957db267
• Upwork Job ID: 1770260818085232640
• Last Price Increase: 2024-03-20

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @adelekennedy (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01793b9557957db267

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor Plus for review of internal employee PR - @allroundexperts (Internal)

[NikkiWines]

@adelekennedy fyi this issue is just an external dupe for https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/342922 - we needed to re-assign the C+ for #36934 since the current C+ is going OOO.

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @adelekennedy is eligible for the NewFeature assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ It looks like this issue is labelled as a New Feature but not tied to any GitHub Project. Keep in mind that all new features should be tied to GitHub Projects in order to properly track external CAP software time ⚠️

[NikkiWines]

Yes yes melvin we know

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.60-13 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Add One Transaction Report View #36934

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-04-15. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @allroundexperts requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@allroundexperts] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@allroundexperts] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@allroundexperts] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@allroundexperts] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@allroundexperts] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@adelekennedy] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[adelekennedy]

@NikkiWines I think the only payment due here is for @allroundexperts for the PR review please let me know if I'm missing any additional compensation!

Payouts due:

• Contributor+: $250 @allroundexperts (NewDot)

[NikkiWines]

Correct, the only payment needed here is for the review. Thanks @adelekennedy!