Handle isWaitingOnBankAccount for IOU requests

[nkuoch]

• HOLD on https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/8131 and https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/37841
• HOLD on https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/38042 and https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/8226

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/270705
$ #22763

Tests

Open browser 1:
Create user admin@thedomain20821.com
Create new workspace and invite employee2@thedomain20821.com
Create workspace OPEN vbba using test credentials

Open browser 2:
Sign into employee2@thedomain20821.com
In the workspace chat, request money

Chat view:

On browser 1 (admin@thedomain20821.com), you should see the request

Chat view:

Request view:

Click on Pay with Expensify.
You should see "started settling up, payment is held until ... adds a bank account":

Request view:

On browser 2 (employee2@thedomain20821.com)
You should see a green dot and a button to add your bank account.

Click on the button and add a personal bank account. You should see the payment as settled:

Request view:

On browser 1 (admin@thedomain20821.com), make sure you see the request as Paid

Chat view:

Request view:

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as Tests

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android / native
  • Android / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS / Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C21FRDWCV/p1687808332892129
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG))
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

The screenshots and videos can be seen in the comments of the PR. Also the reviewer included all the platforms they could run at the time. Checking off the checkbox.

Web

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/36083550/253777608-39e9fdfe-0bdf-4671-94ac-7f8b6a5d26fa.png

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

[luacmartins]

@nkuoch is this PR ready for review?

[nkuoch]

@luacmartins yes for a first pass of code review and main case test. Meanwhile, I'll add more tests. Just don't forget to pull the auth and web PRs if you want to test it.

[mountiny]

@luacmartins all yours I cannot merge this but I agree we should merge this and do any polish later.

[luacmartins]

I tested the flow again today and I'm seeing two bugs that I think are blockers:

BUG 1: Expense report disappears from LHN and ReportScreen

1. As the admin, pay the money request
2. Notice that the report temporarily disappears from the LHN and ReportScreen and we're navigated to the Concierge chat

BUG 2: Settlement button is still visible after paying and crashes the App

1. After the steps above, navigate back to the Expense report once it reappears in the LHN
2. Notice that the settlement button is still visible (it shouldn't)
3. Tap the button
4. Notice that the App crashes

bug.mov

BUG 3: Settlement is not triggered when employee adds bank account

1. After the payment was initiated by the admin, as the employee, add your bank account
2. Notice that the added a bank account... message doesn't show up and the payment is not automatically triggered.

bug2.mov

Let me know if I'm missing something.

[nkuoch]

Updated and retested with Auth and Web PR.

iswaitingonbankaccount.mp4

[luacmartins]

Thanks for addressing those @nkuoch. Retesting this now.

[luacmartins]

I started a group DM so we can get this merged faster, but I'm still seeing some issues when the employee adds a bank account:

web.mov

[luacmartins]

LGTM and tests well.

Since @mountiny had already reviewed this PR but then committed to the branch and C+ won't be able to reliably test this flow given the restricted access to bank accounts, I'm gonna go ahead and merge this PR. We'll address the smaller issues in follow up PRs.

[melvin-bot]

@luacmartins looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[luacmartins]

Tests passed, removing label

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.3.46-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.3.47-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.3.46-2 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.3.47-6 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

[eVoloshchak]

👋 Coming from #38558, this has caused a small issue where the same page was added twice to the navigation stack