Fix - Approve button not disappear after approving report offline if advanced approval set #49188

FitseTLT · 2024-09-13T20:15:35Z

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Precondition: create a control workspace, set "Manually approve all expenses" over to $10 and set advanced approval in OD:

boss owner (admin) submits to mini owner
mini owner (admin) submits boss owner
manager (employee) submits to mini owner forwards to mini owner over limit forwards (limit 100) to boss owner
employee 1 (employee) submits to manager
Log in as an employee 1 and submit an expense below $100, e.g. $25
Log in as an manager
Disable internet connection
Approve the report
Verify that the approve button disappears

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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- 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(themeColors.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 form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label 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

a.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

aw.mp4

iOS: Native

i.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

iw.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

w.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

d.mp4

melvin-bot · 2024-09-13T20:15:41Z

@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 · 2024-09-17T04:30:30Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

+    const submitToAccountID = PolicyUtils.getSubmitToAccountID(policy, ownerAccountID);
+
+    if (approvalChain.length === 0) {
+        return submitToAccountID;


do we need any additional checks for submitAccountID?

FYI this logic is taken from how we get the next approver display name to build next step here as what we are aiming to achieve is to set the managerID to the next approver. And getSubmitToAccountID always returns account number so we don't need any checks.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Line 7030 in 00bc167

const optimisticNextStep = NextStepUtils.buildNextStep(expenseReport, predictedNextStatus);

App/src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts

Line 96 in 00bc167

const nextApproverDisplayName = getNextApproverDisplayName(policy, ownerAccountID, submitToAccountID, report);

App/src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts

Lines 63 to 74 in 00bc167

function getNextApproverDisplayName(policy: Policy, ownerAccountID: number, submitToAccountID: number, report: OnyxEntry<Report>) {

const approvalChain = ReportUtils.getApprovalChain(policy, ownerAccountID, report?.total ?? 0);

if (approvalChain.length === 0) {

return ReportUtils.getDisplayNameForParticipant(submitToAccountID);

}

const nextApproverEmail = approvalChain.length === 1 ? approvalChain[0] : approvalChain[approvalChain.indexOf(currentUserEmail) + 1];

if (!nextApproverEmail) {

return ReportUtils.getDisplayNameForParticipant(submitToAccountID);

}

return PersonalDetailsUtils.getPersonalDetailByEmail(nextApproverEmail)?.displayName ?? nextApproverEmail;

If we got the logic from there can we refactor this so we don't need to maintain two very similar utils?

Maybe the getNextApproverDisplayName() can get the nextApproverAccountID and use it to get the displayName?

mananjadhav · 2024-09-17T04:31:07Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

+        return submitToAccountID;
+    }
+
+    return PersonalDetailsUtils.getAccountIDsByLogins([nextApproverEmail])[0] ?? submitToAccountID;


do we need to add a length check here?

We don't need; there is already a fallback provided in case of empty array 👍

mananjadhav

Overall code changes looks good, asked 2 questions.

mananjadhav · 2024-09-18T18:53:47Z

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-approval.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome-approval.mov

iOS: Native

ios-approval.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari-approval.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web-approval.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-approval.mov

mananjadhav · 2024-09-22T21:14:56Z

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

dylanexpensify · 2024-09-23T19:01:13Z

@mananjadhav requested ad hoc build 👍

github-actions · 2024-09-23T19:34:34Z

🧪🧪 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/49188/index.html	❌ FAILED ❌
	The QR code can't be generated, because the iOS build failed
Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/49188/NewExpensify.dmg	https://49188.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

mananjadhav · 2024-09-24T13:40:08Z

Thanks @dylanexpensify testing this.

marcaaron · 2024-09-25T00:44:52Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

+    const submitToAccountID = PolicyUtils.getSubmitToAccountID(policy, ownerAccountID);
+
+    if (approvalChain.length === 0) {
+        return submitToAccountID;


If we got the logic from there can we refactor this so we don't need to maintain two very similar utils?

marcaaron · 2024-09-25T00:46:02Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

+    const submitToAccountID = PolicyUtils.getSubmitToAccountID(policy, ownerAccountID);
+
+    if (approvalChain.length === 0) {
+        return submitToAccountID;


Maybe the getNextApproverDisplayName() can get the nextApproverAccountID and use it to get the displayName?

FitseTLT · 2024-09-25T11:03:12Z

Maybe the getNextApproverDisplayName() can get the nextApproverAccountID and use it to get the displayName?

Correct @marcaaron I have implemented it and tests well.

marcaaron

Nice changes, thanks!

OSBotify · 2024-09-25T20:07:44Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

github-actions · 2024-09-27T17:58:59Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.0.41-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2024-09-30T22:40:46Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.0.41-10 🚀

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

FitseTLT added 3 commits September 10, 2024 16:20

change manager id optimistically for advanced approval

f7baac5

Merge branch 'main' into fix-approve-button-in-offline

06c2559

implemented getNextApproverAccountID

8beb8b0

FitseTLT requested a review from a team as a code owner September 13, 2024 20:15

melvin-bot bot requested review from mananjadhav and removed request for a team September 13, 2024 20:15

mananjadhav reviewed Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

dylanexpensify added the Ready To Build label Sep 23, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into fix-approve-button-in-offline

3efcfd2

mananjadhav approved these changes Sep 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from marcaaron September 24, 2024 19:37

marcaaron requested changes Sep 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

refactored code to make it DRY

4bf4032

FitseTLT requested review from mananjadhav and marcaaron September 25, 2024 11:03

marcaaron approved these changes Sep 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron merged commit 55b1e32 into Expensify:main Sep 25, 2024
16 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Sep 27, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-09-27 #49855

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix - Approve button not disappear after approving report offline if advanced approval set #49188

Fix - Approve button not disappear after approving report offline if advanced approval set #49188

FitseTLT commented Sep 13, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 13, 2024

mananjadhav Sep 17, 2024

FitseTLT Sep 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcaaron Sep 25, 2024

marcaaron Sep 25, 2024

mananjadhav Sep 17, 2024

FitseTLT Sep 17, 2024

mananjadhav left a comment

mananjadhav commented Sep 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mananjadhav commented Sep 22, 2024

dylanexpensify commented Sep 23, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 23, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 24, 2024

marcaaron Sep 25, 2024

marcaaron Sep 25, 2024

FitseTLT commented Sep 25, 2024

marcaaron left a comment

OSBotify commented Sep 25, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 27, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 30, 2024

	function getNextApproverDisplayName(policy: Policy, ownerAccountID: number, submitToAccountID: number, report: OnyxEntry<Report>) {
	const approvalChain = ReportUtils.getApprovalChain(policy, ownerAccountID, report?.total ?? 0);
	if (approvalChain.length === 0) {
	return ReportUtils.getDisplayNameForParticipant(submitToAccountID);
	}

	const nextApproverEmail = approvalChain.length === 1 ? approvalChain[0] : approvalChain[approvalChain.indexOf(currentUserEmail) + 1];
	if (!nextApproverEmail) {
	return ReportUtils.getDisplayNameForParticipant(submitToAccountID);
	}

	return PersonalDetailsUtils.getPersonalDetailByEmail(nextApproverEmail)?.displayName ?? nextApproverEmail;

Fix - Approve button not disappear after approving report offline if advanced approval set #49188

Fix - Approve button not disappear after approving report offline if advanced approval set #49188

Conversation

FitseTLT commented Sep 13, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 13, 2024

mananjadhav Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

FitseTLT Sep 17, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron Sep 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron Sep 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mananjadhav Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

FitseTLT Sep 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mananjadhav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mananjadhav commented Sep 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

mananjadhav commented Sep 22, 2024

dylanexpensify commented Sep 23, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 23, 2024

mananjadhav commented Sep 24, 2024

marcaaron Sep 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron Sep 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

FitseTLT commented Sep 25, 2024

marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Sep 25, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 27, 2024

github-actions bot commented Sep 30, 2024

FitseTLT Sep 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mananjadhav commented Sep 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading