Default to empty merchant for receipt requests #25924

Gonals · 2023-08-25T12:32:33Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/311299
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Request money from another account in Newdot
Enter a receipt
Click "Show more: and confirm the Merchant is empty:

4. Complete the request. 5. Run `bwm.sh` 6. Wait for a bit for `bwm` to do its thing (you are waiting for `SmartScan?receiptID=XXX`). 7. Log into expensify.com.dev/expensiworks/ 8. Find the receipt you just uploaded (if you cleared up the other ones, it'll be the only one!) and populate all fields. 9. Wait for a bit (`PostProcessSmartScannedReceipt?receiptID=XXX` is what you are waiting for). 10. Confirm the data has been updated in the App (and the DB)!

Offline tests

None

QA Steps

Request money from another account in Newdot
Enter a receipt
Click "Show more: and confirm the Merchant is empty:

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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:
- 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
- If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
- 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 the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
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

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

melvin-bot · 2023-08-25T12:32:38Z

@parasharrajat Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

melvin-bot · 2023-08-25T12:32:44Z

@cubuspl42 @ One of you needs to copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Gonals · 2023-08-25T12:33:39Z

No C+ review needed here

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

mountiny · 2023-08-25T13:09:43Z

@Gonals You can still set the merchant when you are creating the request. But we cannot pass anything else then the default one right? That will lead to the same issue. Should we than remove this option when creating the Receipt request?

Gonals · 2023-08-25T13:12:47Z

@Gonals You can still set the merchant when you are creating the request. But we cannot pass anything else then the default one right? That will lead to the same issue. Should we than remove this option when creating the Receipt request?

Hmmm. Yeah, I think we could very well not show those fields for scan receipts. In oldDot, you just scan a receipt and that's that. We don't really expect them to populate anything here (they can always edit later if they want). We don't let them add an amount, so there's no reason to let them populate other fields 🤷

Gonals · 2023-08-25T13:26:01Z

@Gonals You can still set the merchant when you are creating the request. But we cannot pass anything else then the default one right? That will lead to the same issue. Should we than remove this option when creating the Receipt request?

Hmmm. Yeah, I think we could very well not show those fields for scan receipts. In oldDot, you just scan a receipt and that's that. We don't really expect them to populate anything here (they can always edit later if they want). We don't let them add an amount, so there's no reason to let them populate other fields 🤷

Moving this to the room!

mountiny · 2023-08-25T13:52:06Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android / native
- Android / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / Safari
- MacOS / Chrome / Safari
- MacOS / Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (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
- 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
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
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 the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
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 reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

This is a logic change hence there should not be differences across platforms. I have tested on web and attached a video below. The requests were handled correctly.

Web

web25924.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

mountiny

Thanks moving this forwards to make sure other smart scan flows can be tested well while we decide better long term solution

mountiny

Thanks!

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

mountiny

Thank you!

melvin-bot · 2023-08-25T14:37:34Z

@mountiny 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.

OSBotify · 2023-08-25T14:41:41Z

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

mountiny · 2023-08-25T17:51:42Z

The tests were passing

OSBotify · 2023-08-28T18:49:35Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.58-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-08-30T01:18:38Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.3.58-5 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-08-30T01:57:03Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.59-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-08-31T01:57:21Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.3.59-5 🚀

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

situchan · 2023-10-31T15:42:28Z

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

    return {
        transactionID,
        amount,
        currency,
        reportID,
        comment: commentJSON,
-        merchant: merchant || CONST.TRANSACTION.DEFAULT_MERCHANT,
+        merchant: merchant || defaultMerchant,


This change was redundant. It's just optimistic data, not affect api call.
As merchant is set to empty optimistically, it caused description briefly showing before api response.

Default to empty merchant for receipt requests

0caa539

Gonals requested a review from a team as a code owner August 25, 2023 12:32

Gonals self-assigned this Aug 25, 2023

melvin-bot bot requested review from parasharrajat and removed request for a team August 25, 2023 12:32

Gonals requested review from mountiny and a team and removed request for parasharrajat August 25, 2023 12:32

melvin-bot bot requested review from cubuspl42 and removed request for a team August 25, 2023 12:32

Gonals removed the request for review from cubuspl42 August 25, 2023 12:33

Gonals added 2 commits August 25, 2023 14:43

prettier

40136d7

better determine merchant

4885dd3

mountiny requested changes Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js Show resolved Hide resolved

reverse condition

4fd7e27

mountiny self-requested a review August 25, 2023 13:37

mountiny previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

condition was wrong after all

2aff773

Gonals dismissed mountiny’s stale review via 2aff773 August 25, 2023 14:06

mountiny previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

mountiny reviewed Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js Show resolved Hide resolved

comment

f78d667

Gonals dismissed mountiny’s stale review via f78d667 August 25, 2023 14:25

better comment

443127e

mountiny approved these changes Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 68a9fcd into main Aug 25, 2023
11 checks passed

mountiny deleted the alberto-emptyMerchant branch August 25, 2023 14:37

melvin-bot bot added the Emergency label Aug 25, 2023

mountiny removed the Emergency label Aug 25, 2023

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-08-28 #26113

Closed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Aug 30, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-08-30 #26268

Closed

situchan mentioned this pull request Oct 10, 2023

fix: default merchant for money request with receipt #29118

Merged

59 tasks

situchan reviewed Oct 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

situchan mentioned this pull request Oct 31, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-10-23] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-23] [$500] Request money - Description briefly displayed in preview after adding a receipt from a manual request #28380

Closed

6 tasks

tienifr mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2023

[$500] Request money - Merchant field is cleared after changing receipt in confirmation page #32123

Closed

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Default to empty merchant for receipt requests #25924

Default to empty merchant for receipt requests #25924

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023 •

edited by vincdargento

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 25, 2023

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 25, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023

mountiny commented Aug 25, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023

mountiny commented Aug 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mountiny left a comment

mountiny left a comment

mountiny left a comment

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 25, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 25, 2023

mountiny commented Aug 25, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 28, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 30, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 30, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 31, 2023

situchan Oct 31, 2023

Default to empty merchant for receipt requests #25924

Default to empty merchant for receipt requests #25924

Conversation

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023 • edited by vincdargento Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 25, 2023

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 25, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023

mountiny commented Aug 25, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023

mountiny commented Aug 25, 2023 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 25, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 25, 2023

mountiny commented Aug 25, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 28, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 30, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 30, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 31, 2023

situchan Oct 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Gonals commented Aug 25, 2023 •

edited by vincdargento

Loading

mountiny commented Aug 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading