Remove the dependency on the parent report when deciding if report can be approved #47926

mountiny · 2024-08-23T14:41:21Z

Details

The IOU.canApproveIOU method relies on the parent report chat to determine if the report can be approved or not. This is a problem because approvers of expense reports might not necessarily have access to the parent report, or the parent report might not be loaded in local Onyx state, which leads to a bug whereas the approver can't see the approve button.

Luckily we know all the information we need to show the button from the expense report and the policy of the report which the user should have locally.

Fixed Issues

Related to Slack thread https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1724364263668779
N/A

Tests

@Beamanator can you help me with the test steps here?

Create Collect policy (in OldDot), on Advanced Approvals, and make sure isPolicyExpenseChatEnabled is true
Invite members to the policy, like this:
1. Submitter[User] -> submitsTo approver A
2. Approver A[User] -> submitsTo owner
3. Approver B[User] -> submitsTo owner
As the submitter, create a report with at least one expense report & submit the report
As the owner, change the Submitter's submitsTo to Approver B
As Approver A, make sure you can see the Approve button on the original report from above

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

…eport can be approved

melvin-bot · 2024-08-23T14:41:26Z

@ 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]

Beamanator · 2024-08-23T19:28:13Z

Updated to my understanding of what the text steps should be

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-23T20:19:57Z

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-08-28.at.5.12.38.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-23T20:58:27Z

As Approver A, make sure you can see the Approve button on the original report from above

it seems like once i change approver to userB the report for Approver A becomes unaccessible

RPReplay_Final1724446507.MP4

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-23T21:01:14Z

And i dont even have approve button for Approver B

cc @mountiny @Beamanator

mountiny · 2024-08-23T21:48:11Z

@ishpaul777 can you check what is the employeeList on the policy and who is the managerID on the report?

mountiny · 2024-08-23T21:48:29Z

Thats definitely odd

mountiny · 2024-08-23T21:49:38Z

@ishpaul777 I dont think these changes will work with pusher updates yet, you might have to sign out and sign back in after each change in the approval chain

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-23T21:58:27Z

@ishpaul777 I dont think these changes will work with pusher updates yet, you might have to sign out and sign back in after each change in the approval chain

still same after sign in and out, if approver is change from user A to B, user A lost access to report and user B dont have "Approve" button

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-23T22:06:59Z

Screen.Recording.2024-08-24.at.3.31.28.AM-1.mov

Totally accepting if I might be doing a step wrong somewhere 🙏

Basically the user who is approver at the time when the expense is submitted is the only one get approver button but if approver changes A to B, A lost access to report

Subitter -> expense to Approver A
owner change approver to Approver B
Result: A lose access to report, Approver B will not get Approve button

Owner change approver to Approver A again
Result: A got access to report and can approve the expense

mountiny · 2024-08-23T23:49:41Z

So when the report is submitted and awaiting a review from Approver A, that approver should not lose access to the report when the approver is changed.

This is odd, maybe there is something missing in the test steps / policy setup required to replicate the flow we hit with the contributor policy @Beamanator

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-26T13:17:34Z

FI, i tried changing Approver role to Workspace Admin and then changing approver to other user in this case user dont lose access to report but approver button is also not working in this case

Screen.Recording.2024-08-26.at.6.46.49.PM.mov

mountiny · 2024-08-27T12:16:33Z

@ishpaul777 I am not sure still sorry, this is odd. @Beamanator would you be able to help out @ishpaul777 here as you are much more fluent in this flow, I am trying to focus on workspace feeds right now to close the wave-collect

mountiny · 2024-08-27T12:34:13Z

@ishpaul777 I feel like your setup is still not exactly what @JmillsExpensify had in his policy.

@JmillsExpensify might be able to help us, @ishpaul777 can you highlight how exactly does your setup look like for the policy/ settings/ approval chain

JmillsExpensify · 2024-08-27T12:56:47Z

Jumping in to try and help with the reproduction steps for this case. I think this should do it, as it's minimally how we discovered this issue:

Admin A create a Control workspace on OldDot. Workspace is policyExpenseChatEnabled
Admin invites User B and User C as members.
Amin invites User D and User E. User D is the submitsTo for B. User E is the submitsTo for C
Have User B and User C submit reports for approval
Confirm that both User D and User E see workspace chats for the relevant members in NewDot, including the ability to approve the report
Now in OldDot, have Admin A change the approval workflow. Now User D is the submitsTo for C. User E is the submitsTo for B
Confirm that User D and User E have workspace chats for the right members, and that they are able to approve those respective reports.

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-27T13:05:18Z

Thanks @JmillsExpensify I'll try these steps.

@ishpaul777 can you highlight how exactly does your setup look like for the policy/ settings/ approval chain

its same as given in PR test steps:

Create Collect policy (in OldDot), on Advanced Approvals, and make sure isPolicyExpenseChatEnabled is true
Invite members to the policy, like this:
- Submitter[User] -> submitsTo approver A
- Approver A[User] -> submitsTo owner
- Approver B[User] -> submitsTo owner

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-27T13:26:27Z

Have User B and User C submit reports for approval
Confirm that both User D and User E see workspace chats for the relevant members in NewDot, including the ability to approve the report

@JmillsExpensify is this correct i feel user D and E submits and B and C approve??

ishpaul777 · 2024-08-27T13:37:51Z

Confirm that User D and User E have workspace chats for the right members, and that they are able to approve those respective reports.

@JmillsExpensify This seems true if the expense is submitted after the switch of approvers, but for expense submitted before switch, and it is still unapproved and the new Approver B of E can't see approve button, and Approver C of D can't see approve button is this expected ?

Beamanator · 2024-08-28T03:44:00Z

Huh from this video: #47926 (comment)

I don't reeeeeally understand what's going on - your test user names are so confusing 🤣 and it looks like there's multiple with a name of sa? 😅

Maybe we can pull main, create a new adhoc build, then get @garrettmknight to test this PR tomorrow to see what he gets 🙏

Beamanator · 2024-08-28T04:52:38Z

Ok here's what I'm trying:

Admin creates a Collect workspace on NewDot, then updates to Control (it updated to non instant submit)
Admin invites Submitter, Approver 1, Approver 2 as members (via NewDot).
Admin sets Submitter -> Approver 1 via workflow approvers (in NewDot)
Have Submitter submit an expense in the workspace chat & submit
- Verified it submitted to Approver 1 👍
- Verified Approver 1 sees workspace chat for Submitter & can access the report & can see Approve button (all in NewDot) 👍
- Here's what I saw, first time Approver 1 ever logged in, at this point:
Now in OldDot, have Admin change the approval workflow. Now Approver 2 is the submitsTo for Submitter.
- Verified Approver 2 sees workspace chat for Submitter 👍 & has access to the expense report 👍 & doesn't see Approve button 👍 & Approver 1 is still manager for expense report 👍
- Approver 1 SHOULD still have access to the expense report, that is hopefully being fixed in https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/12259 ❌
- Approver 1 SHOULD be able to see the Approve button (the fix from this PR) but that can really only be tested once ^ is fixed
- Video of this below

Screen.Recording.2024-08-27.at.10.48.10.PM.mov

…pproval

mountiny · 2024-08-28T08:15:03Z

@Beamanator @garrettmknight running a new build https://github.com/Expensify/App/actions/runs/10592831812

github-actions · 2024-08-28T08:50:01Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
❌ FAILED ❌	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/47926/index.html
The QR code can't be generated, because the android build failed
Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/47926/NewExpensify.dmg	https://47926.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

garrettmknight · 2024-08-28T11:28:14Z

Tested and confirmed that Approver A has access to the Approve button even when they've been removed from the workflow + workspace chat.

mountiny · 2024-08-28T11:29:08Z

@ishpaul777 Are you able to complete the checklist and approve the PR? Garrett confirmed that this works for our needs now internally so the pr should be good to go. Thanks!

melvin-bot · 2024-08-28T12:04:55Z

@cristipaval 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 · 2024-08-28T12:04:58Z

🎯 @ishpaul777, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

An E/App issue has been created to issue payment here: #48166.

Beamanator

LGTM

OSBotify · 2024-08-28T16:28:29Z

✋ 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 · 2024-08-28T21:45:37Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.0.26-1 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-08-30T18:34:04Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.0.26-6 🚀

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

Remove the dependency on the parent report when deciding if expense r…

4817f9d

…eport can be approved

mountiny requested a review from Beamanator August 23, 2024 14:41

mountiny self-assigned this Aug 23, 2024

mountiny requested a review from a team as a code owner August 23, 2024 14:41

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team August 23, 2024 14:41

mountiny added the Ready To Build label Aug 23, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

mountiny requested a review from ishpaul777 August 23, 2024 20:15

Beamanator mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2024

[Awaiting Payment 6th September] ApproveMoneyRequest is failing when there is no nextReceiver #47936

Closed

6 tasks

Merge branch 'main' into vit-removeDependencyOnParentReportForReportA…

17dce4b

…pproval

ishpaul777 approved these changes Aug 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from cristipaval August 28, 2024 12:04

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2024

Payment issue for E/App PR#47926 #48166

Closed

Beamanator approved these changes Aug 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Beamanator merged commit c12adce into main Aug 28, 2024
16 checks passed

Beamanator deleted the vit-removeDependencyOnParentReportForReportApproval branch August 28, 2024 16:11

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-08-28 #48221

Closed

93 tasks

IuliiaHerets mentioned this pull request Aug 30, 2024

[$250] Expense- RBR gets shown for advanced approval enabled expense if default currency is changed #48328

Closed

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Remove the dependency on the parent report when deciding if report can be approved #47926

Remove the dependency on the parent report when deciding if report can be approved #47926

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 23, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Beamanator commented Aug 23, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Aug 27, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JmillsExpensify commented Aug 27, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 27, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 27, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 27, 2024

Beamanator commented Aug 28, 2024

Beamanator commented Aug 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Aug 28, 2024

github-actions bot commented Aug 28, 2024

garrettmknight commented Aug 28, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 28, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 28, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 28, 2024

Beamanator left a comment

OSBotify commented Aug 28, 2024

OSBotify commented Aug 28, 2024

OSBotify commented Aug 30, 2024

Remove the dependency on the parent report when deciding if report can be approved #47926

Remove the dependency on the parent report when deciding if report can be approved #47926

Conversation

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 23, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Beamanator commented Aug 23, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 • edited Loading

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 • edited Loading

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 • edited Loading

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 26, 2024 • edited Loading

mountiny commented Aug 27, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 27, 2024 • edited Loading

JmillsExpensify commented Aug 27, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 27, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 27, 2024

ishpaul777 commented Aug 27, 2024

Beamanator commented Aug 28, 2024

Beamanator commented Aug 28, 2024 • edited Loading

mountiny commented Aug 28, 2024

github-actions bot commented Aug 28, 2024

garrettmknight commented Aug 28, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 28, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 28, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 28, 2024

Beamanator left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Aug 28, 2024

OSBotify commented Aug 28, 2024

OSBotify commented Aug 30, 2024

mountiny commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Aug 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Aug 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Beamanator commented Aug 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading