fix: [Dupe detection] Tax code review step shows empty option when workspace does not have tax rate

[Krishna2323]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #47796
PROPOSAL: #47796 (comment)

Tests

1. Workspace A has tax rates.
2. Workspace B does not have Taxes feature (disabled)
3. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
4. Go to workspace chat (workspace A)
5. Submit an expense with tax rate
6. Go to workspace chat (workspace B)
7. Submit the same expense as Step 3 but without tax rate
8. Submit another expense (any amount) to workspace chat (workspace B)
9. Open transaction thread of the expense submitted in Step 5
10. Click Review duplicates
11. Click Keep this one (any)
12. Verify Tax code review page is skipped

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Workspace A has tax rates.
2. Workspace B does not have Taxes feature (disabled)
3. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
4. Go to workspace chat (workspace A)
5. Submit an expense with tax rate
6. Go to workspace chat (workspace B)
7. Submit the same expense as Step 3 but without tax rate
8. Submit another expense (any amount) to workspace chat (workspace B)
9. Open transaction thread of the expense submitted in Step 5
10. Click Review duplicates
11. Click Keep this one (any)
12. Verify Tax code review page is skipped

QA Steps

1. Workspace A has tax rates.
2. Workspace B does not have Taxes feature (disabled)
3. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
4. Go to workspace chat (workspace A)
5. Submit an expense with tax rate
6. Go to workspace chat (workspace B)
7. Submit the same expense as Step 3 but without tax rate
8. Submit another expense (any amount) to workspace chat (workspace B)
9. Open transaction thread of the expense submitted in Step 5
10. Click Review duplicates
11. Click Keep this one (any)
12. Verify Tax code review page is skipped

• 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@brunovjk 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]

[Krishna2323]

Though the PR works, I'm a bit confused about the flow at the moment. I will comment on all the possible solutions today and move forward with whatever seems like the best approach.

[brunovjk]

Though the PR works, I'm a bit confused about the flow at the moment. I will comment on all the possible solutions today and move forward with whatever seems like the best approach.

Great :D Let me know if/when I can assit.

[Krishna2323]

I apologize for the delay. Unfortunately, my health has not been well over the past two weeks, which has caused some setbacks. I understand that this PR, along with a few others, has been delayed, but I am making every effort to complete it this weekend. Much of my time has been spent away from my workplace. However, I am committed to finishing the PRs by the end of the weekend.

Thank you for your understanding, and I sincerely apologize again 🙏🏻.

[Krishna2323]

Working on this, hopefully this will be ready for review in 1-2 hours.

[Krishna2323]

Wasn't able to complete this yesterday :(, this once is bit complex. Will work again today.

[brunovjk]

Wasn't able to complete this yesterday :(, this once is bit complex. Will work again today.

Good work @Krishna2323 ! Let's me know if can help .

[Krishna2323]

I have changed my approach a bit from my proposal here. However, the behavior remains the same.

We will skip the tax selection page if the policy does not include any tax codes extracted from different transactions. For example:

• If we have T1, T2, and T3, which are duplicate transactions from different policies, and T1 and T2 have different tax codes, while T3 has no tax code:

  • If we keep the T3 transaction, the tax code review will be skipped, as T3 does not have a matching tax code in the policy.
  • If we keep T1 or T2, the tax code review will be shown if T1 or T2 have tax codes that match their respective policies.
  • If T1’s policy does not include the tax code from the T2 transaction, the tax code review will be skipped, as there will be no tax code to select.

@brunovjk, what do you think about the implemented behaviour?

NOTE: in the video below, we are showing the tax code and tax amount field for the transaction does not have these fields, I'm working on it and this will be fixed soon.

Monosnap.screencast.2024-09-17.06-30-04.mp4

[brunovjk]

@Krishna2323 I'm dealing with some problems with my internet. I'll come back here as soon as I resolve it. Thank you

[brunovjk]

I'm back @Krishna2323 :D Now at full steam. I'll review it and let you know.

[brunovjk]

I have changed my approach a bit from my proposal here.

@pecanoro I’ve tested the recent changes, and everything runs fine without errors. The original issue appears to be resolved. However, before we proceed, could you confirm if the updated behavior, as mentioned in @Krishna2323's comment, aligns with our project expectations? Specifically, we need to ensure the behavior regarding the tax code selection is correct. Once you confirm, I will do a detailed code review and complete the checklist. Is it ok? Thank you!

[pecanoro]

@brunovjk @Krishna2323 Yeah, I think that's the best behavior. Thank you for handling edge cases.

[brunovjk]

@brunovjk @Krishna2323 Yeah, I think that's the best behavior. Thank you for handling edge cases.

Awesome!! Thank you very much @pecanoro, I will continue with the checklist.

[brunovjk]

@Krishna2323 Would you mind merging main to update the branch? Thanks.