[CP Stag] Add GBR to pending wallet reports & update perview for 1:1 reports

[b4s36t4]

Details

This PR fixes the issue with not showing GBR for the report that require user action to complete create wallet and as well to show correct preview message for the 1:1 chat instead of showing system message.

1. [Paid] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-31] [$500] [HIGH] [P2P ACTIVATION] GBR is not shown when a pending payment is waiting on the user to enable their wallet #30033
2. [HOLD for payment 2023-11-01] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-31] [$500] [HIGH] [P2P Activation] System message is showing in the chat preview in LHN #30037

Fixed Issues

$ #30037
PROPOSAL: #30037 (comment)

$ #30033
PROPOSAL: #30033 (comment)

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

1. Open App request any amount form any user (Silver Wallet)
2. Observe the 1:1 chat and IOU report both should show owes message.
3. Pay money using expensify method from User B (gold wallet)
4. For User B there shouldn't be no GBR
5. For User A there should GBR on IOU report
6. For 1:1 the preview should paid message
7. For IOU report the message should contain paid & amount held system message both should be there

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
  Same as above

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: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb 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

Android: Native

android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

CHROME.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@situchan 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]

[b4s36t4]

@situchan @techievivek PR is up.!

[b4s36t4]

Also since there is jest failing, but the test case seems redundant, shall I remove the test case or update it? @techievivek

[situchan]

@b4s36t4 I think that's a good test case. We can update it to be compatible for our change.

[situchan]

Also, please watch #30079 and pull main after it's merged.

[luacmartins]

Agree with @situchan let's update the test

[techievivek]

@b4s36t4 Yes, let's please update the tests as per new changes rather than getting rid of it.

[techievivek]

@situchan Can you please give this a review, I will also test this on my end.

[situchan]

@techievivek unit test failing

Sorry for confusion. Thought @techievivek's PR 😄

[b4s36t4]

@situchan @techievivek review this please. Updated to resolve issue with isSettled function update.

[techievivek]

Would it not show as settled for the iou report now?

[b4s36t4]

That's a or condition so it would show paid for iou as well.

[techievivek]

That's what I am saying then how would it show system message in case of iou report if isWaitingOnBankAccount is set on ioureport as isSettled(report.reportID) would always return as true.

[b4s36t4]

Kapture.2023-10-23.at.13.21.52.mp4

With both checks for expense & chat reports (1:1 & IOU thread)

[situchan]

How about introducing new function called isPaid?
So isSettled = isPaid && isWaitingOnBankAccount === false

[techievivek]

How about introducing new function called isPaid?
So isSettled = isPaid && isWaitingOnBankAccount === false

The issue here is that for DM chat report that contains the IOU preview we want to show the settled message in LHN even if there is isWaitingOnBankAccount property set on the IOU report, but for the IOU report, we want to show the system message that we are waiting for the payee to enable their wallet/bank account.

[mountiny]

@techievivek I dont necessarily think that is a problem (though I agree that the fact these two flows are inconsistent is not good, the wallet flow was added as second as the reimbursement flow already existed in the oldDot)

I think we should mainly not be showing "paid this and this" when the money actually has not left their account yet, nothing will happen until the employee adds the bank account and in that case its fine there is no Pay action and the alternate text should more so talk about hte fact the user needs to add a bank account imho

[Julesssss]

Failing test looks related to changes:

[b4s36t4]

@Julesssss fixed.

[techievivek]

@mountiny

I dont necessarily think that is a problem (though I agree that the fact these two flows are inconsistent is not good, the wallet flow was added as second as the reimbursement flow already existed in the oldDot)

My primary concern is how some of our code, particularly on the frontend, tries to follow the same code for both flows. At the same time, in the backend, we have different commands handling this differently, resulting in inconsistencies. For e.g. in the case when the user needs to add a bank account or wallet. So we should either try to make it consistent or handle it distinctly.

I think we can re-look into the code(both frontend and backend) and try to clean this up once the urgency has settled a bit.

[mountiny]

I think we can re-look into the code(both frontend and backend) and try to clean this up once the urgency has settled a bit.

I agree

[Julesssss]

LGTM with the latest changes, I'll leave final review to @mountiny

[situchan]

Elsewhere flow looks good.
Currently retesting with gold wallet flow as GBR condition changed

[mountiny]

Thanks!

[mountiny]

@situchan let me know in slack once you finished, thanks!

[situchan]

@b4s36t4 did you retest gold wallet flow on payer side? works fine on payee side.
@techievivek stopped ngrok so not able to test.

[b4s36t4]

Yes, on payer side it will show GBR till user pays, it will hide after payment done.

payer side is verified when connected to ngork, payee side verified without ngrok (ngrok is slow & taking long to get response)

[situchan]

Approving as @b4s36t4 covered one test case I missed.
All other cases work well.

[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]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.89-5 🚀

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

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.3.89-6 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.91-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.3.91-8 🚀

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