fix: Description review appears when distance expenses are created without description #48422

daledah · 2024-09-02T18:26:14Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #47974
PROPOSAL: #47974 (comment)

Tests

Go to workspace chat.
Submit two same distance expenses without description.
Go to transaction thread of any of the expense.
Click Review duplicates.
Click Keep this one (any).
Verify that: Description review will not show up because both distance expenses are created without description.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Go to workspace chat.
Submit two same distance expenses without description.
Go to transaction thread of any of the expense.
Click Review duplicates.
Click Keep this one (any).
Verify that: Description review will not show up because both distance expenses are created without description.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-mweb.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-mweb.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

…thout description

melvin-bot · 2024-09-02T18:47:31Z

@mananjadhav 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]

mananjadhav · 2024-09-03T05:18:44Z

Code change looks fine to me. I'll work on the checklist today.

mananjadhav · 2024-09-04T17:36:57Z

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-review-duplicates.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome-review-duplicates.mov

iOS: Native

ios-review-duplicates.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari-review-duplicates.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

No description

web-review-duplicates.mov

With different description

web-review-duplicates-diff-desc.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-review-duplicates.mov

mananjadhav · 2024-09-04T19:51:53Z

I am a little stuck on the Android and iOS Native builds. Will upload the videos as soon as I am able to fix it.

mananjadhav · 2024-09-04T22:37:29Z

@daledah I am testing this on native and I am getting not found screen when I first time click on the Keep this one.

Also can you please upload videos with full screen. I can't seem to differentiate between the Android and iOS Native videos. I don't see the error in your videos but I am consistently able to reproduce it.

Screen.Recording.2024-09-05.at.4.03.52.AM.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-09-05.at.4.04.21.AM.mov

daledah · 2024-09-05T03:00:33Z

@mananjadhav i'll update soon

daledah · 2024-09-05T03:50:35Z

@mananjadhav i updated the screenshots

@daledah I am testing this on native and I am getting not found screen when I first time click on the Keep this one.

I think it is regression from this PR

mananjadhav · 2024-09-08T20:51:35Z

@mananjadhav i updated the screenshots

@daledah I am testing this on native and I am getting not found screen when I first time click on the Keep this one.

I think it is regression from this PR

@parasharrajat Can you please confirm this?

parasharrajat · 2024-09-10T22:09:51Z

The not found page was implemented in that PR for the Confirmation screen but this more looks like a data loading issue.

pecanoro · 2024-09-12T21:55:48Z

Any updates here?

daledah · 2024-09-14T06:06:50Z

I'll give an update today

daledah · 2024-09-15T18:44:55Z

in here, after reviewDuplicatesResult is loaded, there will be a period where the transaction hasn't finished building, leading to shouldShowNotFoundPage = true. I think we can add the condition || !transaction?.transactionID here when the transaction is not yet fully built.
@mananjadhav what do you think?

pecanoro · 2024-09-17T15:21:21Z

@mananjadhav Friendly bump on the previous question here.

mananjadhav · 2024-09-18T18:55:54Z

in here, after reviewDuplicatesResult is loaded, there will be a period where the transaction hasn't finished building, leading to shouldShowNotFoundPage = true. I think we can add the condition || !transaction?.transactionID here when the transaction is not yet fully built. @mananjadhav what do you think?

I'll need to test this at my end. Let me test it at my end. @daledah You can still push the change and I can test different cases.

pecanoro · 2024-09-20T13:51:09Z

@mananjadhav Could you prioritize this PR? It's been 3 weeks so I would like to merge it as soon as possible 😄

mananjadhav · 2024-09-20T13:56:41Z

I did a few tests and I will finish this today.

mananjadhav · 2024-09-22T21:13:35Z

Is it possible to generate adhoc builds for this one? I am having issues with mobile app builds.

pecanoro · 2024-09-23T13:51:30Z

Sure, let me trigger one

pecanoro · 2024-09-23T14:19:52Z

Almost done, it's taking a while for Android:

github-actions · 2024-09-23T14:27:21Z

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

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/48422/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/48422/index.html

Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/48422/NewExpensify.dmg	https://48422.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

mananjadhav · 2024-09-23T14:30:32Z

Thanks I'll get right to this after dinner.

mananjadhav · 2024-09-23T16:32:39Z

@pecanoro All yours.

OSBotify · 2024-09-23T16:44:30Z

✋ 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 · 2024-09-24T19:29:14Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 9.0.40-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2024-09-27T17:44:09Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.0.40-6 🚀

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

fix: Description review appears when distance expenses are created wi…

6226324

…thout description

daledah marked this pull request as ready for review September 2, 2024 18:47

daledah requested a review from a team as a code owner September 2, 2024 18:47

melvin-bot bot requested review from mananjadhav and removed request for a team September 2, 2024 18:47

pecanoro self-requested a review September 12, 2024 21:55

Merge branch 'main' into fix/47974

d92a311

fix: prevent not here page showing up

28a27ef

pecanoro added the Ready To Build label Sep 23, 2024

mananjadhav approved these changes Sep 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

pecanoro approved these changes Sep 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

pecanoro merged commit 321e4bb into Expensify:main Sep 23, 2024
17 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Sep 24, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-09-24 #49662

Closed

67 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: Description review appears when distance expenses are created without description #48422

fix: Description review appears when distance expenses are created without description #48422

daledah commented Sep 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 2, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 3, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mananjadhav commented Sep 4, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 4, 2024

daledah commented Sep 5, 2024

daledah commented Sep 5, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 8, 2024

parasharrajat commented Sep 10, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 12, 2024

daledah commented Sep 14, 2024

daledah commented Sep 15, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 17, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 18, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 20, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 20, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 22, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 23, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 23, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 23, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 23, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 23, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 23, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 24, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 27, 2024

fix: Description review appears when distance expenses are created without description #48422

fix: Description review appears when distance expenses are created without description #48422

Conversation

daledah commented Sep 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 2, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 3, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

mananjadhav commented Sep 4, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 4, 2024

daledah commented Sep 5, 2024

daledah commented Sep 5, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 8, 2024

parasharrajat commented Sep 10, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 12, 2024

daledah commented Sep 14, 2024

daledah commented Sep 15, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 17, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 18, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 20, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 20, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 22, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 23, 2024

pecanoro commented Sep 23, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 23, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 23, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 23, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 23, 2024

OSBotify commented Sep 24, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 27, 2024

daledah commented Sep 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mananjadhav commented Sep 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading