fix: change message when reimbursementChoice is reimburseNo #49837

koko57 · 2024-09-27T10:29:45Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #49333
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Go to Workspace -> enable Workflows.
Disable payments
Submit an expense on the workspace chat
Go offline, click into the expense
Verify that you see "No further action required" text in the header.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Go to Workspace -> enable Workflows.
Disable payments
Submit an expense on the workspace chat
Go offline, click into the expense
Verify that you see "No further action required" text in the header.

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 / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / 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 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
- If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  - 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(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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author 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

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-09-27T10:29:50Z

@ikevin127 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]

ikevin127 · 2024-09-28T01:36:21Z

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

MacOS: Desktop

ikevin127

@koko57 I just completed the reviewer checklist, it tests well following the test steps provided in description, except for the case when the step is replaced by the OpenReportresponse if we visit the report while online.

web-to-clarify.mov

I noticed in the issue #49333 (comment) that @srikarparsi said:

Ah thanks for the looking into this. Do you think you could help with the offline (optimistic) behavior here and I can work on a backend PR that returns the right next steps for this case?

So I guess we're good to go here since the back-end PR will fix this case once it's live 👍

srikarparsi · 2024-09-29T23:24:23Z

Hm, I actually envisioned the implementation for this to be a little different. I'm sorry for not clarifying this earlier.

When an expense is submitted when reimbursementChoice is reimburseNo, the backend sets the status of the report to CLOSED. And it looks like the next steps of an optimistically closed report is already "No further action required".

So, when a report is created with reimbursementChoice = reimburseNo, I believe we just have to set the status of the report to `CLOSED and that should take care of the next steps. I still do like how you created a separate variable for noActionRequired to consolidate the three usages so I think we can keep that.

But to clarify the backend behavior we need to emulate is:

If a report is on a workspace with:

Payments disabled: reimbursementChoice = reimburseNo (Can check using arePaymentsEnabled)
Approval is Submit&Close: approvalMode = optional (Can check using isSubmitAndClose)
Scheduled Submit is Instant: autoReportingFrequency = instant (Can check using isInstantSubmitEnabled)

Then the report should optimistically be created with:

Status = CLOSED (2)
State = APPROVED (2)

For internal reference, this is the Auth code which is based on @trjExpensify's comment.

trjExpensify · 2024-09-30T09:58:21Z

When an expense is submitted when reimbursementChoice is reimburseNo, the backend sets the status of the report to CLOSED

Hm, why? It's totally possible to have approvals enabled and no payments, so the report would be approved and shouldn't be changed to closed.

So, when a report is created with reimbursementChoice = reimburseNo, I believe we just have to set the status of the report to `CLOSED and that should take care of the next steps.

I don't think we should be doing that if the workspace has approvals enabled. @koko57's issue (as I understand it) is fixing the next steps for the case where an expense report is done and "no further action is required" which can be possible when the report is either closed or approved depending on the workspace settings.

koko57 · 2024-09-30T10:05:22Z

@srikarparsi @trjExpensify so should I do anything here? I will change the check I used for arePaymentsEnabled but should I do anything else then?

…tic-update

trjExpensify · 2024-10-01T01:21:23Z

@srikarparsi @trjExpensify so should I do anything here?

That probably depends, need to see what @srikarparsi has to say about #49837 (comment).

srikarparsi · 2024-10-01T06:50:14Z

Hey! In the first part of this comment, I generalized a bit to try to explain the implementation approach (the part about reimburseChoice = no leads to closed reports).

I tried to explain the behavior in detail with the second part:

But to clarify the backend behavior we need to emulate is:

If a report is on a workspace with:

Payments disabled: reimbursementChoice = reimburseNo (Can check using arePaymentsEnabled)

Approval is Submit&Close: approvalMode = optional (Can check using isSubmitAndClose)

Scheduled Submit is Instant: autoReportingFrequency = instant (Can check using isInstantSubmitEnabled)

Then the report should optimistically be created with:

Status = CLOSED (2)

State = APPROVED (2)

For internal reference, this is the Auth code which is based on @trjExpensify's comment.

Do you agree with the second part @trjExpensify? Basically, if the three conditions are met (payments disabled, submit&close approval and instant submit), then the report should be created in the closed state. I believe that is the behavior we ended up with on this issue but please correct me if I'm wrong.

trjExpensify · 2024-10-01T12:51:08Z

Do you agree with the second part @trjExpensify? Basically, if the three conditions are met (payments disabled, submit&close approval and instant submit), then the report should be created in the closed state

Yes, I agree with that. I'm confused by this mismatch with the matrix though, was that a typo on state?:

Then the report should optimistically be created with:

Status = CLOSED (2)
State = APPROVED (2)

srikarparsi · 2024-10-01T19:16:34Z

Yes, I agree with that. I'm confused by this mismatch with the matrix though, was that a typo on state?:

Yeahh, the matrix is a little confusing when compared with code. 2(status) and 2(state) in the matrix correlates with the closed reports and that's what we're using in the Auth and will be using in the App code.

I just said

Status = CLOSED (2)
State = APPROVED (2)

because in the App code, state 2 is called APPROVED

trjExpensify · 2024-10-01T23:16:01Z

because in the App code, state 2 is called APPROVED

Okay, as if it wasn't confusing enough 😂

trjExpensify · 2024-10-01T23:16:35Z

So we good to move on here?

srikarparsi · 2024-10-02T05:26:32Z

Yupp, I believe so. @koko57 do you think you could switch the implementation to this comment? Specifically this part:

But to clarify the backend behavior we need to emulate is:

If a report is on a workspace with:

Payments disabled: reimbursementChoice = reimburseNo (Can check using arePaymentsEnabled)

Approval is Submit&Close: approvalMode = optional (Can check using isSubmitAndClose)

Scheduled Submit is Instant: autoReportingFrequency = instant (Can check using isInstantSubmitEnabled)

Then the report should optimistically be created with:

Status = CLOSED (2)

State = APPROVED (2)

For internal reference, this is the Auth code which is based on @trjExpensify's comment.

Once again, sorry for not clarifying this earlier.

…tic-update

koko57 · 2024-10-02T08:20:30Z

@srikarparsi I see that we have this in submitReport

koko57 · 2024-10-03T10:34:27Z

@srikarparsi what should I change on my side then?

srikarparsi · 2024-10-04T20:01:30Z

So for these reports, with these conditions, we won't actually ever hit the SubmitReport function because the workspace is on InstantSubmit. You can test this by going offline and then creating an expense report in a policy with payments disabled, instant submit, and no approvals:

Settings screenshot:

When you create an expense report in offline mode in this policy, the report is created in 1 state and 1 status:

But this report should optimistically be created in state 2 and status 2 if these conditions are met. It looks like the optimistic data for the RequestMoney function is built here so we just need to modify the report to be 2 state 2 status (kind of like how it was done for RequestMoney but with the above conditions)

…tic-update

koko57 · 2024-10-07T12:33:53Z

@srikarparsi thanks for explanation! I was a bit confused with this one. I think I've finally made this work - I needed to create a new function to get stateNum and statusNum for the expense report.

ikevin127 · 2024-10-08T20:23:26Z

@koko57 Is the PR ready to be retested ?

koko57 · 2024-10-09T02:41:50Z

@ikevin127 yes, it's ready to be retested

cc @srikarparsi

…tic-update

src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts

ikevin127 · 2024-10-09T20:53:29Z

I went through the testing steps again, same flow I followed before in #49837 (review) and the behaviour changed to:

🟢 Following the current description Tests steps -> all are passing.
⚠️ Upon returning back online, the No further action required! goes away (see video below), is this the correct behaviour ?

Video

bideo.mov
⚠️ In NextStepUtils.ts -> noActionRequired object I noticed that No further action required! is not translated - which I think should be, right ? I dropped a review comment here.

cc @srikarparsi To verify if everything is good / needs changes.

srikarparsi · 2024-10-10T00:38:31Z

src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts

        case CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.CLOSED:
-            optimisticNextStep = {


Can we add optimisticNextStep = noActionRequired and the break. I think it would improve readability a little.

srikarparsi · 2024-10-10T00:46:01Z

cc @srikarparsi To verify if everything is good / needs changes.

The No further action required! disappearing after online is backend as @koko57 pointed out here.

And for the translation, I'm getting confirmation internally and will leave a comment with the correct translation.

Thanks for pointing these out!

…tic-update

srikarparsi · 2024-10-10T17:49:16Z

src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts

@@ -125,6 +135,12 @@ function buildNextStep(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, predictedNextStatus: ValueOf<t
                ],
            };

+            if (!PolicyUtils.arePaymentsEnabled(policy)) {


Sorry one more thing, @koko57 do you think you could explain why you added this? If payments are disabled and there is some non instant auto reporting frequency (weekly, monthly, etc.), the next steps should still be "Waiting for x's expenses to automatically submit" (below text). cc @trjExpensify for confirmation.

A delayed submission frequency other than manually, yes.

@srikarparsi I understood that it also must be that way. So I will remove it

koko57 · 2024-10-11T06:15:04Z

@srikarparsi changes reverted

srikarparsi

Awesome, this looks good, thank you!

OSBotify · 2024-10-11T06:53:17Z

✋ 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 · 2024-10-15T03:30:02Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/srikarparsi in version: 9.0.49-0 🚀

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

IuliiaHerets · 2024-10-15T08:58:23Z

This PR is failing because of issue #50785

github-actions · 2024-10-17T01:44:57Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.0.49-2 🚀

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

fix: change message when reimbursementChoice is reimburseNo

c1ce94a

koko57 requested a review from a team as a code owner September 27, 2024 10:29

melvin-bot bot requested a review from ikevin127 September 27, 2024 10:29

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team September 27, 2024 10:29

koko57 mentioned this pull request Sep 27, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-10-24] [$250] Show the next step for Closed or Approved reports as “No action required” if payments are disabled. #49333

Closed

fix: minor improvement

588f210

ikevin127 approved these changes Sep 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from srikarparsi September 28, 2024 01:49

koko57 added 2 commits September 30, 2024 17:06

fix: minor improvement

fd6258e

Merge branch 'main' into fix/49333-show-different-message-for-optimis…

4b5cb90

…tic-update

Merge branch 'main' into fix/49333-show-different-message-for-optimis…

e18f619

…tic-update

koko57 added 2 commits October 7, 2024 19:18

Merge branch 'main' into fix/49333-show-different-message-for-optimis…

bd36d9a

…tic-update

fix: close and approve the request for given conditions

9d38ce4

Merge branch 'main' into fix/49333-show-different-message-for-optimis…

d28c823

…tic-update

ikevin127 reviewed Oct 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libs/NextStepUtils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

srikarparsi reviewed Oct 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

koko57 added 2 commits October 10, 2024 13:09

fix: apply suggestion

cf8d531

Merge branch 'main' into fix/49333-show-different-message-for-optimis…

bf55ef7

…tic-update

srikarparsi reviewed Oct 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix: remove unnecessary condition

177dd5e

srikarparsi approved these changes Oct 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

srikarparsi merged commit b7c1e1e into Expensify:main Oct 11, 2024
16 checks passed

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

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-10-15 #50764

Closed

71 tasks

IuliiaHerets mentioned this pull request Oct 15, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-11-13] [$250] Header - Header does not display "No Action Required" when payment is disabled #50785

Closed

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: change message when reimbursementChoice is reimburseNo #49837

fix: change message when reimbursementChoice is reimburseNo #49837

koko57 commented Sep 27, 2024 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 27, 2024

ikevin127 commented Sep 28, 2024

ikevin127 left a comment

srikarparsi commented Sep 29, 2024

trjExpensify commented Sep 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

koko57 commented Sep 30, 2024

trjExpensify commented Oct 1, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 1, 2024

trjExpensify commented Oct 1, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 1, 2024

trjExpensify commented Oct 1, 2024

trjExpensify commented Oct 1, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 2, 2024

koko57 commented Oct 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

koko57 commented Oct 3, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 4, 2024

koko57 commented Oct 7, 2024

ikevin127 commented Oct 8, 2024

koko57 commented Oct 9, 2024

ikevin127 commented Oct 9, 2024

srikarparsi Oct 10, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 10, 2024

srikarparsi Oct 10, 2024

trjExpensify Oct 10, 2024

koko57 Oct 11, 2024

koko57 commented Oct 11, 2024

srikarparsi left a comment

OSBotify commented Oct 11, 2024

github-actions bot commented Oct 15, 2024

IuliiaHerets commented Oct 15, 2024

github-actions bot commented Oct 17, 2024

fix: change message when reimbursementChoice is reimburseNo #49837

fix: change message when reimbursementChoice is reimburseNo #49837

Conversation

koko57 commented Sep 27, 2024 • edited by github-actions bot Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 27, 2024

ikevin127 commented Sep 28, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

ikevin127 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

srikarparsi commented Sep 29, 2024

trjExpensify commented Sep 30, 2024 • edited Loading

koko57 commented Sep 30, 2024

trjExpensify commented Oct 1, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 1, 2024

trjExpensify commented Oct 1, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 1, 2024

trjExpensify commented Oct 1, 2024

trjExpensify commented Oct 1, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 2, 2024

koko57 commented Oct 2, 2024 • edited Loading

koko57 commented Oct 3, 2024

srikarparsi commented Oct 4, 2024

koko57 commented Oct 7, 2024

ikevin127 commented Oct 8, 2024

koko57 commented Oct 9, 2024

ikevin127 commented Oct 9, 2024

srikarparsi Oct 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

srikarparsi commented Oct 10, 2024

srikarparsi Oct 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

trjExpensify Oct 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

koko57 Oct 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

koko57 commented Oct 11, 2024

srikarparsi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Oct 11, 2024

github-actions bot commented Oct 15, 2024

IuliiaHerets commented Oct 15, 2024

github-actions bot commented Oct 17, 2024

koko57 commented Sep 27, 2024 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

trjExpensify commented Sep 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

koko57 commented Oct 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading