CRITICAL: [Track expense] [$250] Remove beta flag for everyone

[quinthar]

Problem:

This feature is ready for everyone, let's ship it!

Solution:

Let's:

1. Enable everyone for the beta
2. Rip out all the beta code everywhere

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~014ddf8901aeb1c9cc
• Upwork Job ID: 1787975091637518336
• Last Price Increase: 2024-05-07
• Automatic offers:
• tienifr | Contributor | 0

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @sobitneupane

[quinthar]

taking off hold!

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~014ddf8901aeb1c9cc

[melvin-bot]

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

[thienlnam]

Looking for someone to remove all the TrackExpense beta related code in the FE

[gijoe0295]

Proposal

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

Remove beta flag for track expense

What is the root cause of that problem?

This is a feature request

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

Check for canUseTrackExpense flags and remove them. This is quite a straight-forward work.

Most of them are tied with isSelfDM check so we can easily remove.

[tienifr]

Proposal

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

We want to rip out all the beta code for track expense everywhere

What is the root cause of that problem?

This is feature request

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

The flag we need to remove is canUseTrackExpense, for places that are using canUseTrackExpense, we need to assume that canUseTrackExpense is always true, and refactor the code accordingly

There're 2 types of places we're using canUseTrackExpense:

1. Using canUseTrackExpense with negated value, there's 1 instance of this here. When we assume that canUseTrackExpense will be true, !canUseTrackExpense will be false. If we simply remove canUseTrackExpense or !canUseTrackExpense here, it will cause a regression because the isSelfDM after it is still evaluated while it should not be, since !canUseTrackExpense should already be false.

In this case we need to remove the entire block where !canUseTrackExpense is used, which means removing:

|| (!canUseTrackExpense && isSelfDM(report))

2. Using canUseTrackExpense value as is (not negated), the rest of the cases belong to this category, for example here, in this case removing the canUseTrackExpense itself will not impact the conditions (because canUseTrackExpense is true), so we're safe to remove only canUseTrackExpense without any additional refactoring.

For the methods that have canUseTrackExpense as param, we can remove the param too.

After removing usage of canUseTrackExpense, we can then remove the method itself here and then the beta const here

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[sobitneupane]

Thanks for the proposal everyone.

Proposal from @tienifr looks good to me. They have explained the possible scenarios with the solution.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @thienlnam is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @tienifr 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[quinthar]

@tienifr what's your ETA on this?

[thienlnam]

Just merged the App PR, now pending deploy

[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]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @sobitneupane, @thienlnam, @tienifr eroding to Monthly issue.

P.S. Is everyone reading this sure this is really a near-term priority? Be brave: if you disagree, go ahead and close it out. If someone disagrees, they'll reopen it, and if they don't: one less thing to do!

[thienlnam]

This is done

[thienlnam]

Ah, re-opening so we can handle payment here

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @mallenexpensify (NewFeature), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/14418#:~:text=BugZero%20process%20steps%20for%20feature%20requests for more details. Please add this Feature request to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[thienlnam]

This is ready to be paid out cc @mallenexpensify - there were no regressions, the linked issue is from a different cause

[tienifr]

@mallenexpensify According to this announcement, this issue is marked as CRITICAL and should have a base price of $500. Could you help to update the issue title and factor that into the payment summary?

Thanks!

While bugs/feature requests will now start at $250, any that are deemed Critical or High to our roadmap (noted via the label High Priority) will automatically be updated to $500. This is to ensure we get the necessary attention and urgency applied to these issues.

[mallenexpensify]

@tienifr can you please accept the job and reply here once you have?
https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~014aedec8d9684b35c

For price, I commented on that last week

There have been questions about what constitutes a job being auto-increased to $500. These jobs are only the ones that have the High Priority label added to them (ie. issue with HIGH or CRITICAL in the title or project status/priority are not auto-increased to $500).

[tienifr]

@mallenexpensify I accepted the offer, thanks!

[mallenexpensify]

Contributor: @tienifr paid $250 via Upwork
Contributor+: @sobitneupane due $250 via NewDot

Def don't think we need a regression test here

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @sobitneupane