[HOLD for payment 2024-05-20] Split - Split amount does not automatically recalculate afte reselecting split members

[m-natarajan]

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: 1.4.71-0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: n
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause internal team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to FAB > Split expense.
3. Enter amount > Next.
4. Select a few participants > Next.
5. Click on the back button.
6. Unselect one user.
7. Click Next.

Expected Result:

The individual split amount will automatically recalculate because user returns to the previous page.

Actual Result:

The individual split amount does not automatically recalculate.
As a result, error "The sum of splits must equal the total amount." shows up after user unselects one user and returns to confirmation page.

Workaround:

unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6473701_1715083219015.20240507_195602.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @greg-schroeder

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @cristipaval (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @greg-schroeder (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.

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[m-natarajan]

@greg-schroeder FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors.

[m-natarajan]

We think this bug might be related to #vip-split

[marcaaron]

cc @youssef-lr This one is also pretty annoying if you happen to run into it. Maybe there's an obvious fix.

[youssef-lr]

@marcaaron fixed here 5b4415c

[kavimuru]

Issue not reproduced

recording__175.mp4

[greg-schroeder]

I think this is fixed per #41761 (comment) - closing, but reopen if I'm misunderstanding this.

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.72-1 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Uneven splits follow up #41717

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-05-20. 🎊

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.
• [@greg-schroeder] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[JmillsExpensify]

Re-opening for payment summary for @allroundexperts

[greg-schroeder]

Oh. I think @allroundexperts was the reviewer but this issue has no price. I'm assuming $250 would make sense given the timing here as this was created after changes in April.

So, @allroundexperts can make a manual request for $250

cc @JmillsExpensify

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @allroundexperts