Fix: Add red dot to one transaction reports #44810

truph01 · 2024-07-04T09:26:14Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #43760
PROPOSAL: #43760 (comment)

Tests

Create a new workspace.
Submit only one expense to that workspace.
Click on the header, and choose Hold.
Leave a hold comment and confirm.
Verify the expense report of the above expense is pinned with RBR.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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: 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 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 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-07-08.at.16.50.46.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-07-08.at.16.55.06.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-07-08.at.16.56.56.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-07-08.at.16.58.16.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-07-08.at.16.43.46.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-07-08.at.16.47.32.mov

melvin-bot · 2024-07-08T10:09:35Z

@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]

trjExpensify · 2024-07-08T13:19:38Z

@Pujan92 can you review this one please? Thanks!

Pujan92 · 2024-07-08T14:06:33Z

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

mm1.webm

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.-.2024-07-11.at.14.51.18.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.-.2024-07-11.at.14.56.30.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-07-10.at.19.51.35.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Pujan92 · 2024-07-08T14:13:24Z

src/libs/SidebarUtils.ts

+        const transactionReportActions = ReportActionsUtils.getAllReportActions(report.reportID);
+        const oneTransactionThreadReportID = ReportActionsUtils.getOneTransactionThreadReportID(report.reportID, transactionReportActions, undefined);
+        let doesTransactionThreadReportHasViolations = false;
+        if (oneTransactionThreadReportID) {
+            const transactionReport = getReport(oneTransactionThreadReportID);
+            doesTransactionThreadReportHasViolations = !!transactionReport && OptionsListUtils.shouldShowViolations(transactionReport, betas ?? [], transactionViolations);
+        }
        const hasErrorsOtherThanFailedReceipt =
-            doesReportHaveViolations || Object.values(allReportErrors).some((error) => error?.[0] !== Localize.translateLocal('iou.error.genericSmartscanFailureMessage'));
+            doesTransactionThreadReportHasViolations ||
+            doesReportHaveViolations ||
+            Object.values(allReportErrors).some((error) => error?.[0] !== Localize.translateLocal('iou.error.genericSmartscanFailureMessage'));


Why do we need these changes? I don't think we require it.

This logic is to make sure the one transaction report is always pinned in LHN as mentioned in comment.

Yes, Thanks!

Pujan92 · 2024-07-09T09:41:32Z

src/libs/SidebarUtils.ts

@@ -278,6 +297,21 @@ function getOptionData({
    result.shouldShowSubscript = ReportUtils.shouldReportShowSubscript(report);
    result.pendingAction = report.pendingFields?.addWorkspaceRoom ?? report.pendingFields?.createChat;
    result.brickRoadIndicator = hasErrors || hasViolations ? CONST.BRICK_ROAD_INDICATOR_STATUS.ERROR : '';
+    const oneTransactionThreadReportID = ReportActionsUtils.getOneTransactionThreadReportID(report.reportID, ReportActionsUtils.getAllReportActions(report.reportID));


Instead of putting this logic here, how about placing it with the parent report OptionRowLHNData? I am suggesting this to keep the shouldDisplayViolations in a single place.

App/src/components/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHNData.tsx

Lines 37 to 39 in dd96852

const shouldDisplayViolations = canUseViolations && ReportUtils.shouldDisplayTransactionThreadViolations(fullReport, transactionViolations, parentReportAction);

const oneTransactionThreadReportID = ReportActionsUtils.getOneTransactionThreadReportID(reportID, ReportActionsUtils.getAllReportActions(reportID)); let shouldDisplayOneTransactionThreadViolation = false; if (oneTransactionThreadReportID) { const oneTransactionThreadReport = getReport(oneTransactionThreadReportID); if ( ReportUtils.shouldDisplayTransactionThreadViolations( oneTransactionThreadReport, transactionViolations, ReportActionsUtils.getAllReportActions(reportID)[oneTransactionThreadReport?.parentReportActionID ?? '-1'], ) ) { shouldDisplayOneTransactionThreadViolation = true; } } const shouldDisplayViolations = canUseViolations && (ReportUtils.shouldDisplayTransactionThreadViolations(fullReport, transactionViolations, parentReportAction) || shouldDisplayOneTransactionThreadViolation);

I think we should let the SizebarUtils handle the logic to display the RBR in case one transaction report has violations because:

We have already handled the logic to pin the one transaction report if it has a violation in SizebarUtils. So the logic to display RBR should be placed here for easier management.

Reduce the complexity of the OptionRowLHNData file.

cc @robertjchen What do you think?

Pujan92 · 2024-07-10T06:12:19Z

@truph01 We also need to update the test steps bcoz now we are not showing three dots in the header.

truph01 · 2024-07-10T06:23:40Z

@Pujan92 Sure. I am checking it now

truph01 · 2024-07-10T12:17:51Z

@Pujan92 Pls help check my responses above. Thanks

Pujan92 · 2024-07-10T14:19:43Z

src/libs/actions/Task.ts

@@ -1163,6 +1163,7 @@ export {
    clearTaskErrors,
    canModifyTask,
    setNewOptimisticAssignee,
+    getReport,


Can we move this to ReportUtils as it fits there more?

Pujan92

LGTM!

@truph01 plz update the test steps.

truph01 · 2024-07-11T09:40:00Z

@Pujan92 I updated test steps to remove "Click on three dot" step.

robertjchen

LGTM, but looks like there's a conflict

truph01 · 2024-07-11T17:01:32Z

I resolved the conflict.

robertjchen

👍

OSBotify · 2024-07-11T18:59:27Z

✋ 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 · 2024-07-15T21:05:11Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/robertjchen in version: 9.0.7-3 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-15T22:13:55Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.0.7-4 🚀

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

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

bernhardoj · 2024-07-16T06:00:58Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+function getReport(reportID: string): OnyxEntry<Report> {
+    return ReportConnection.getAllReports()?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${reportID}`];
+}
+


FYI, I don't think we should be exporting getReport anymore. It was previously removed in #43632. They added a test rule to prevent the export, but they got the name wrong.

App/tests/actions/EnforceActionExportRestrictions.ts

Lines 32 to 35 in 7d58aa6

it('does not export getReport', () => {

// @ts-expect-error the test is asserting that it's undefined, so the TS error is normal

expect(ReportUtils.getReportOrDraftReport).toBeUndefined();

});

@bernhardoj Thanks. I will note it in the future PR.

Thanks @bernhardoj.
To contrary, ReportConnection.ts is created to keep track of all the reports instead of subscribing it from all the components for the performance improvement in #44068. Maybe we can move getReport there, though it is the same.
Thoughts @robertjchen ?

OSBotify · 2024-07-17T00:20:31Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.0.7-8 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-18T13:50:41Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.8-6 🚀

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

Fix: Add red dot to one transaction reports

7da324b

truph01 mentioned this pull request Jul 4, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [$250] [One expense reports] Red dot on LHN does not appear for participant when create 1:1 hold expense #43760

Closed

6 tasks

truph01 added 5 commits July 8, 2024 16:09

merge main

7ab06d9

Fix: Lint

39f8fed

Fix: Typescript

1bef82d

Fix: Remove allReports

805f6ae

Fix: Conflict

20f24c7

truph01 marked this pull request as ready for review July 8, 2024 10:09

truph01 requested a review from a team as a code owner July 8, 2024 10:09

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team July 8, 2024 10:09

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Pujan92 July 8, 2024 10:09

Fix: Typecheck

d8e6c25

Pujan92 reviewed Jul 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

Pujan92 reviewed Jul 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

Fix: Merge main

4e1d2de

Pujan92 reviewed Jul 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

truph01 added 2 commits July 11, 2024 04:20

Fix: Create getReport function in ReportUtils

9c8ef36

Fix: Lint

9392dc9

Pujan92 approved these changes Jul 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from robertjchen July 11, 2024 09:36

robertjchen previously approved these changes Jul 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

Fix: Resolve conflict

c35d1e5

truph01 dismissed robertjchen’s stale review via c35d1e5 July 11, 2024 16:48

robertjchen approved these changes Jul 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

robertjchen merged commit 934c845 into Expensify:main Jul 11, 2024
15 checks passed

Pujan92 mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2024

[$250] RBR - No RBR is shown on LHN for combined IOU with a violation #44879

Closed

6 tasks

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-07-15 #45421

Closed

m-natarajan mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-09] [$125] Hold - LHN does not highlight the currently opened expense thread after holding an expense #45443

Closed

6 tasks

bernhardoj reviewed Jul 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix: Add red dot to one transaction reports #44810

Fix: Add red dot to one transaction reports #44810

truph01 commented Jul 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 8, 2024

trjExpensify commented Jul 8, 2024

Pujan92 commented Jul 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 Jul 8, 2024

truph01 Jul 10, 2024

Pujan92 Jul 10, 2024

Pujan92 Jul 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

truph01 Jul 10, 2024

Pujan92 Jul 10, 2024

Pujan92 commented Jul 10, 2024

truph01 commented Jul 10, 2024

truph01 commented Jul 10, 2024

Pujan92 Jul 10, 2024

truph01 Jul 10, 2024

Pujan92 left a comment

truph01 commented Jul 11, 2024

robertjchen left a comment

truph01 commented Jul 11, 2024

robertjchen left a comment

OSBotify commented Jul 11, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

bernhardoj Jul 16, 2024

truph01 Jul 16, 2024

Pujan92 Jul 16, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 17, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 18, 2024


	const shouldDisplayViolations = canUseViolations && ReportUtils.shouldDisplayTransactionThreadViolations(fullReport, transactionViolations, parentReportAction);

	it('does not export getReport', () => {
	// @ts-expect-error the test is asserting that it's undefined, so the TS error is normal
	expect(ReportUtils.getReportOrDraftReport).toBeUndefined();
	});

Fix: Add red dot to one transaction reports #44810

Fix: Add red dot to one transaction reports #44810

Conversation

truph01 commented Jul 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 8, 2024

trjExpensify commented Jul 8, 2024

Pujan92 commented Jul 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pujan92 Jul 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pujan92 commented Jul 10, 2024

truph01 commented Jul 10, 2024

truph01 commented Jul 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pujan92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

truph01 commented Jul 11, 2024

robertjchen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

truph01 commented Jul 11, 2024

robertjchen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Jul 11, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Jul 17, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 18, 2024

truph01 commented Jul 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented Jul 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 Jul 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading