[HOLD for payment 2024-10-30] [CRI] [Search v2.2] Add No category and No tag search filters

[trjExpensify]

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: v9.0.39-2
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
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: customer in the NewDot feedback public room.
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C036QM0SLJK/p1727216730118619

Action Performed:

1. Create a workspace
2. Enable tags in More features > add a couple of tags
3. Go to the Search page
4. Create an expense
5. Click the Filters button
6. Click category
7. Click tag

Actual results

• It's not uncommon for people to want to filter their expense list to those they've yet to code properly, this helps them focus on what still needs to be done to finalise their expenses. On OldDot we accommodate this by including options for Uncategorized and Untagged in the filters on the expenses page. We didn't add those to NewDot with the MVP, and so this is a feature request issue to add those two filters.

Expected results

• When you click the Category filter, there should be a No category row at the top above the Category subheader. When selected, it filters the results to include expenses with no category value selected.

• When you click the Tag filter, there should be an No tag row at the top above the Tag subheader. When selected, it filter the results to include expenses with no tag value selected.

• We use no: in the search syntax for this. I.e no:category || no:tag

Workaround:

Yes, use OldDot to filter, but we really don't want them to switch back to Classic.

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

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @trjExpensify

[melvin-bot]

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

[trjExpensify]

Put this on planning for a sec and assigned it to us @luacmartins while we just confirm on the Q here: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C036QM0SLJK/p1727219750037359?thread_ts=1727216730.118619&cid=C036QM0SLJK

[JmillsExpensify]

I'm not sure this should be Uncategorized and Untagged given that we know we have customers that use Uncategorized.

[trjExpensify]

Why not? We've used that for years above the list of categories in the filters? I think that's fine.

[trjExpensify]

We could name the rows "No category" and "No tag" if we want? It would match the search syntax of no:category. I'm down for whatever.

[luacmartins]

I'm cool with matching the syntax and using No category or No tag

[JmillsExpensify]

Awesome that resolves my concern.

[trjExpensify]

Updated!

[trjExpensify]

You have everything you need here now to proceed, @luacmartins?

[luacmartins]

Yea, I think I have everything for now

[luacmartins]

Working on the draft PRs

[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 9.0.50-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Support empty value for categories and tags #50122

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-10-25. 🎊

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

• @ikevin127 requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

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

• [@ikevin127] Please propose regression test steps to ensure the new feature will work correctly on production in further releases.
• [@trjExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

[ikevin127]

No payment due here based on #49675 (comment) because the PR was reverted due to regression.

[trjExpensify]

Will jump on reviewing the v2 PR once the auth PR is deployed and HOLD is lifted 👍

Auth PR hit prod an hour ago: https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/12812#issuecomment-2427681049

[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 9.0.52-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Support empty value for categories and tags v2 #51033

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-10-30. 🎊

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

• @ikevin127 requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

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

• [@ikevin127] Please propose regression test steps to ensure the new feature will work correctly on production in further releases.
• [@trjExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

[ikevin127]

• [@ikevin127] Please propose regression test steps to ensure the new feature will work correctly on production in further releases.

No need for regression tests here as stated before in #46031 (comment):

This feature is still WIP, so we'll add them as part of the project wrap up.

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @ikevin127 paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@trjExpensify)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[ikevin127]

cc @trjExpensify

[trjExpensify]

I'm back! Okay, so confirming payment summary as follows accounting for 1 regression:

• $125 to @ikevin127 for the C+ review

Offer sent.

[ikevin127]

@trjExpensify Offer accepted, thanks!

[trjExpensify]

Accepted > Paid > Closing!

[ikevin127]

@luacmartins Just wanted to ask so I'll know in the future: if the first PR was reverted with no payment issued, given that the 2nd PR didn't have any regression, isn't the compensation supposed to be paid fully in this case ?

[luacmartins]

This is what we have in the contributing guidelines:

### Regressions

If a PR causes a regression at any point within the regression period (starting when the code is merged and ending 168 hours (that's 7 days) after being deployed to production): 
- payments will be issued 7 days after all regressions are fixed (ie: deployed to production)
- a 50% penalty will be applied to the Contributor and [Contributor+](https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/contributingGuides/HOW_TO_BECOME_A_CONTRIBUTOR_PLUS.md) for each regression on an issue

The 168 hours (aka 7 days) will be measured by calculating the time between when the PR is merged, and when a bug is posted to the #expensify-bugs Slack channel.

Was the PR reverted because of a regression it caused? I think in this case it introduced a broken feature so I'd say that's a regression and I'd follow the process outlined above where the PR caused a regression 1 day after being deployed to staging and was reverted.

[ikevin127]

Cool, thanks for clearing things up!