Fix member option appear in transaction thread report detail page #42036

nkdengineer · 2024-05-13T05:04:37Z

Details

Fix member option appear in transaction thread report detail page

Fixed Issues

$ #41832
PROPOSAL: #41832 (comment)

Tests

Open a WS chat or DM chat
Create two expenses in this chat
Open a transaction thread report of one of two expenses above
Click on header to open the detail page
Verify that Members option doesn't appear

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

Open a WS chat or DM chat
Create two expenses in this chat
Open a transaction thread report of one of two expenses above
Click on header to open the detail page
Verify that Members option doesn't appear

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-05-13.at.11.57.15.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-05-13.at.11.54.35.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-05-13.at.11.56.47.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-05-13.at.11.55.23.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-05-13.at.11.53.00.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-05-13.at.11.58.50.mov

melvin-bot · 2024-05-13T05:04:56Z

@Pujan92 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]

Pujan92 · 2024-05-13T12:22:50Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

@@ -1499,6 +1499,10 @@ function canAddOrDeleteTransactions(moneyRequestReport: OnyxEntry<Report>): bool
        return false;
    }

+    if (moneyRequestReport?.statusNum === CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.CLOSED) {


@nkdengineer Why do we need this change?

Pujan92 · 2024-05-14T06:23:13Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

@@ -1217,7 +1225,7 @@ function hasExpenses(reportID?: string): boolean {
 * Whether the provided report is a closed expense report with no expenses
 */
 function isClosedExpenseReportWithNoExpenses(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {
-    return report?.statusNum === CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.CLOSED && isExpenseReport(report) && !hasExpenses(report.reportID);
+    return report?.statusNum === CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.CLOSED && isMoneyRequestReport(report) && !hasExpenses(report.reportID);


Same doubt, why this change?

nkdengineer · 2024-05-14T07:11:48Z

@Pujan92 Missed to remove the change that I added in another PR. I updated to remove it.

Pujan92 · 2024-05-14T12:41:07Z

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: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- 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(theme.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 the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
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

Android: Native

pm2.webm

Android: mWeb Chrome

pm1.webm

iOS: Native

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.-.2024-05-17.at.01.24.33.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.-.2024-05-17.at.01.27.09.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-05-16.at.17.59.53.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-05-17.at.01.51.44.mov

Pujan92 · 2024-05-14T13:15:39Z

Create two expenses in this chat

@nkdengineer I don't think we need to create 2 transactions to reproduce, can you plz update the test steps by considering any expense submission?

Pujan92 · 2024-05-14T13:28:13Z

@nkdengineer I am still able to reproduce the issue for the first transaction with the new user, also you can create the expense offline to verify it better. Could you plz check and fix this?

Screen.Recording.2024-05-14.at.18.54.02.mov

nkdengineer · 2024-05-15T10:54:41Z

I don't think we need to create 2 transactions to reproduce, can you plz update the test steps by considering any expense submission?

@Pujan92 Because the bug happens in transaction thread report so we need create at least two requests to open the transaction thread easiest. If not we need open the transaction thread report via deep link.

I am still able to reproduce the issue for the first transaction with the new user, also you can create the expense offline to verify it better. Could you plz check and fix this?

For the first transaction, the report in the video is the IOU report which is called as combine report if we only have one transaction. The RCA is participant here is wrong. I updated to fix this case.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 3599 to 3600 in 76846da

    
           [payeeAccountID]: {hidden: false}, 
        
           [payerAccountID]: {hidden: false},

Pujan92 · 2024-05-16T12:19:52Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

-        [payeeAccountID]: {hidden: false},
-        [payerAccountID]: {hidden: false},
+        [payeeAccountID]: {hidden: true},
+        [payerAccountID]: {hidden: true},


I initially thought here we should also set hidden value based on some flag as buildOptimisticIOUReport called from multiple flows but seems not needed and this works fine.

Pujan92 · 2024-05-16T13:51:48Z

@nkdengineer Please merge main.

Pujan92

LGTM!

Pujan92 · 2024-05-17T20:21:18Z

Tagging @rlinoz as they aren't assigned automatically(might be due to merge freeze)

nkdengineer · 2024-05-28T02:39:15Z

@rlinoz Can we merge this now?

OSBotify · 2024-05-28T18:17:00Z

✋ 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 · 2024-05-29T09:42:45Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/rlinoz in version: 1.4.77-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-05-30T21:25:34Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.77-11 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-05-30T22:37:32Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.77-11 🚀

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

Fix member option appear in transaction thread report detail page

a1bd7f1

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review May 13, 2024 05:04

nkdengineer requested a review from a team as a code owner May 13, 2024 05:04

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team May 13, 2024 05:04

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Pujan92 May 13, 2024 05:04

nkdengineer mentioned this pull request May 13, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-06-06] [$250] IOU - "Members" appears in IOU details page and then disappears after a few seconds #41832

Closed

6 tasks

Pujan92 reviewed May 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

Pujan92 reviewed May 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

nkdengineer added 2 commits May 14, 2024 14:08

Merge branch 'main' into fix/41832

bff2d4a

remove unnecessary change

e7a2eda

remove another change

5164bdb

nkdengineer added 2 commits May 15, 2024 17:45

Merge branch 'main' into fix/41832

ce931c7

Fix issue for iou report

70ec215

Pujan92 reviewed May 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/41832

0843cb6

Pujan92 approved these changes May 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

rlinoz self-requested a review May 20, 2024 12:44

rlinoz approved these changes May 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

rlinoz merged commit a1868c8 into Expensify:main May 28, 2024
16 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 29, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-05-29 #42741

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix member option appear in transaction thread report detail page #42036

Fix member option appear in transaction thread report detail page #42036

nkdengineer commented May 13, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented May 13, 2024

Pujan92 May 13, 2024

Pujan92 May 14, 2024

nkdengineer commented May 14, 2024

Pujan92 commented May 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented May 14, 2024

Pujan92 commented May 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

nkdengineer commented May 15, 2024

Pujan92 May 16, 2024

Pujan92 commented May 16, 2024

Pujan92 left a comment

Pujan92 commented May 17, 2024

nkdengineer commented May 28, 2024

OSBotify commented May 28, 2024

OSBotify commented May 29, 2024

OSBotify commented May 30, 2024

OSBotify commented May 30, 2024

Fix member option appear in transaction thread report detail page #42036

Fix member option appear in transaction thread report detail page #42036

Conversation

nkdengineer commented May 13, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented May 13, 2024

Pujan92 May 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pujan92 May 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nkdengineer commented May 14, 2024

Pujan92 commented May 14, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Pujan92 commented May 14, 2024

Pujan92 commented May 14, 2024 • edited Loading

nkdengineer commented May 15, 2024

Pujan92 May 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pujan92 commented May 16, 2024

Pujan92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pujan92 commented May 17, 2024

nkdengineer commented May 28, 2024

OSBotify commented May 28, 2024

OSBotify commented May 29, 2024

OSBotify commented May 30, 2024

OSBotify commented May 30, 2024

Pujan92 commented May 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented May 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading