[HOLD for payment 2024-11-11] [$250] Held expense-Negative amount in transaction thread for held expense after paying unheld expense

[IuliiaHerets]

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: 9.0.40-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
Issue was found when executing this PR: #49463
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): applausetester+kh010901@applause.expensifail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. [User A] Submit two expenses to User B.
3. [User A] Hold one of the expenses.
4. [User B] Go offline.
5. [User B] Pay the unheld expense.
6. [User B] Click on the expense preview of the held expense in the main chat.

Expected Result:

The amount in the transaction thread will not be negative.

Actual Result:

The amount in the transaction thread is negative.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6615322_1727299431457.20240926_051632.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021841126678085530276
• Upwork Job ID: 1841126678085530276
• Last Price Increase: 2024-10-15
• Automatic offers:
• Nodebrute | Contributor | 104483850

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @OfstadC

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @OfstadC (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.

[IuliiaHerets]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave-collect - Release 1

[IuliiaHerets]

@OfstadC 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

[Nodebrute]

Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2024-10-09 18:11:01 UTC.

Proposal

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

Negative amount in transaction thread for held expense after paying unheld expense

What is the root cause of that problem?

For expense report case we add - before amount because the amounts are stored using an opposite sign

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 345 to 351 in b655040

	// Expense report case:
	// The amounts are stored using an opposite sign and negative values can be set,
	// we need to return an opposite sign than is saved in the transaction object
	let amount = transaction?.modifiedAmount ?? 0;
	if (amount) {
	return -amount;
	}

However, when we handle the pay money request and use getReportFromHoldRequestsOnyxData, we are actually creating an ExpenseReport. For 1:1 direct messages, it should instead be an IOUReport.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 6451 to 6459 in b655040

	const optimisticExpenseReport = ReportUtils.buildOptimisticExpenseReport(
	chatReport.reportID,
	chatReport.policyID ?? iouReport?.policyID ?? '',
	recipient.accountID ?? 1,
	holdTransactions.reduce((acc, transaction) => acc + transaction.amount, 0) * (ReportUtils.isIOUReport(iouReport) ? 1 : -1),
	getCurrency(firstHoldTransaction),
	false,
	newParentReportActionID,
	);

This is also not consistent with the BE response in case of 1:1 DMs the backend will return an IOUReport

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

We should add a check here isPolicyExpenseChat. The idea is that if it's a policy expense chat, we should build an optimistic expense report using buildOptimisticExpenseReport. If it's not a policy expense chat, then we should build an optimistic IOU report using buildOptimisticIOUReport. This is the same logic we are using here Pseudocode

 const optimisticExpenseReport = isPolicyExpenseChat
        ? ReportUtils.buildOptimisticExpenseReport(
              chatReport.reportID,
              chatReport.policyID ?? iouReport?.policyID ?? '',
              recipient.accountID ?? 1,
              totalAmount,
              getCurrency(firstHoldTransaction),
              false,
              newParentReportActionID,
          )
        : ReportUtils.buildOptimisticIOUReport(recipient.accountID ?? 1, iouReport?.managerID ?? 1, totalAmount, chatReport.reportID, getCurrency(firstHoldTransaction), false);

After this change, this line will evaluate to false, and we'll move to this block, where we'll apply -amount, which will fix the bug

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Line 337 in b655040

if (!isFromExpenseReport || isFromTrackedExpense) {

Note: This is pseudocode only. We need to test the implementation with multiple test cases, which can be done in the pull request (PR).

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can use buildOptimisticIOUReport here instead of buildOptimisticExpenseReport

[OfstadC]

Missed this yesterday - reviewing now

[melvin-bot]

@OfstadC Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[OfstadC]

I had issues reproducing this on Friday - forgot to add a comment here.

[m-natarajan]

Able to reproduce

20241001_220541.mp4

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021841126678085530276

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @hungvu193 (External)

[hungvu193]

On my list this weekend.

[hungvu193]

Reviewing shortly

[hungvu193]

hey @Nodebrute, I think your proposal makes sense, can you please provide a little more detailed about your main solution? TIA.

[Nodebrute]

Thank You @hungvu193, I'll update in few hours.

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[hungvu193]

Waiting for contributor information, no action required

[melvin-bot]

@OfstadC @hungvu193 this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[Nodebrute]

@hungvu193 I've updated my main proposal. I tried my best to explain it as clearly as possible, but I'm unsure how to add more detail. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll do my best to answer them.

[hungvu193]

Thanks I'll review it today

[hungvu193]

I see/ i'll check it in a while

[hungvu193]

Thanks for your details. @Nodebrute 's proposal here looks good to me!

[hungvu193]

🎀 👀 🎀

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @blimpich, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @Nodebrute 🎉 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 📖

[melvin-bot]

@OfstadC, @hungvu193, @blimpich, @Nodebrute Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[hungvu193]

Not overdue. PR is inprogress

[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 9.0.56-9 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix negative amount #51122

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-11. 🎊

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

• @hungvu193 requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @Nodebrute requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@hungvu193 @OfstadC The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[OfstadC]

Commenting to please Melly Melvin. @hungvu193 Please ensure BZ checklist is completed by payment date. Thank you!

[hungvu193]

• 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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/42573/files#r1836147530

• If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source 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: N/A

• If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again: We already created some tests to prevent this case, I don't think we need regression test for this one.

[OfstadC]

Payment Summary

• @hungvu193 due $250 via manual New Expensify request
• @Nodebrute paid $250 via Upwork