fix: allow creating Distance request from expense reports #30881

paultsimura · 2023-11-04T05:35:35Z

Details

Allow creating Distance request from expense reports

Fixed Issues

$ #30407
PROPOSAL: #30407 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA.

Offline tests

Same as QA.

QA Steps

Request money from a workspace
Open the expense chat with this workspace
Navigate to the recently updated (created) expense report (the one that contains unsettled money requests)
Click "+" -> Request money

Verify that it's possible to create a Distance request

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
- 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(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 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-compressed.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

chrome-compressed.mp4

iOS: Native

iOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web-compressed.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Desktop-compressed.mp4

melvin-bot · 2023-11-04T05:35:40Z

@thesahindia 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]

thesahindia · 2023-11-07T09:32:21Z

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 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 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(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 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

Screen.Recording.2023-11-07.at.2.15.54.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-11-07.at.2.13.00.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2023-11-07.at.2.25.09.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-11-07.at.2.20.11.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-11-06.at.10.57.24.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-11-07.at.2.26.26.PM.mov

thesahindia

LGTM!

neil-marcellini

Excellent thank you

OSBotify · 2023-11-08T18:20:49Z

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

tgolen · 2023-11-08T20:52:21Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.js

 function createDistanceRequest(report, participant, comment, created, transactionID, category, tag, amount, currency, merchant, billable) {
+    // If the report is an iou or expense report, we should get the linked chat report to be passed to the getMoneyRequestInformation function
+    const isMoneyRequestReport = ReportUtils.isMoneyRequestReport(report);
+    const currentChatReport = isMoneyRequestReport ? ReportUtils.getReport(report.chatReportID) : report;


I think this is an incorrect change. Why not pass the proper report object to createDistanceRequest() in the first place?

We use the same approach when creating a regular money request:

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Lines 847 to 851 in 1dc4593

// If the report is iou or expense report, we should get the linked chat report to be passed to the getMoneyRequestInformation function

const isMoneyRequestReport = ReportUtils.isMoneyRequestReport(report);

const currentChatReport = isMoneyRequestReport ? ReportUtils.getReport(report.chatReportID) : report;

const {payerAccountID, payerEmail, iouReport, chatReport, transaction, iouAction, createdChatReportActionID, createdIOUReportActionID, reportPreviewAction, onyxData} =

getMoneyRequestInformation(currentChatReport, participant, comment, amount, currency, created, merchant, payeeAccountID, payeeEmail, receipt, undefined, category, tag, billable);

What exactly do you mean by a "proper report object" here: is it the one we are fetching as currentChatReport? If so, we'll still need to tell apart a request created from a chat and the one created from an expense report so that we can navigate the user properly. Would you have any suggestions for it?

Just because we do it somewhere else, doesn't mean it's right. It just means that you get to fix it in two places 🎉

What I am saying is that the logic that you added inside the method should have been done outside of the method, and then the proper "chat report" is what is passed to the method in the report param.

If you need something else for the navigation, then I would consider:

Moving navigation out of this method (I also dislike this method is doing navigation, it is an anti-pattern of separating concerns)

Using a different param to control the navigation specifically

Makes sense. Since this PR is already merged, would you want me to create a cleanup one?

OSBotify · 2023-11-10T15:42:48Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.3.97-7 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-11-10T16:00:42Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/neil-marcellini in version: 1.3.98-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-11-14T21:54:09Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.3.98-5 🚀

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

paultsimura added 2 commits October 27, 2023 10:53

Support distance request from expense reports

4dd2eb1

Merge branch 'main' into fix/30407-distance-from-expense

25a5538

paultsimura requested a review from a team as a code owner November 4, 2023 05:35

melvin-bot bot requested review from thesahindia and removed request for a team November 4, 2023 05:35

Lint

98327c2

paultsimura mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2023

[Awaiting Checklist Completion] [$500] Unable to create a Distance request from an Expense Report #30407

Closed

6 tasks

thesahindia approved these changes Nov 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from neil-marcellini November 7, 2023 09:32

neil-marcellini approved these changes Nov 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

neil-marcellini merged commit 49f730f into Expensify:main Nov 8, 2023

tgolen reviewed Nov 8, 2023

View reviewed changes

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Nov 8, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-11-08 #31077

Closed

marcaaron mentioned this pull request Nov 9, 2023

Workspace - Process is looped when attempting to split Distance request in workspace chat #31086

Closed

6 tasks

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-11-10 #31187

Closed

	// If the report is iou or expense report, we should get the linked chat report to be passed to the getMoneyRequestInformation function
	const isMoneyRequestReport = ReportUtils.isMoneyRequestReport(report);
	const currentChatReport = isMoneyRequestReport ? ReportUtils.getReport(report.chatReportID) : report;
	const {payerAccountID, payerEmail, iouReport, chatReport, transaction, iouAction, createdChatReportActionID, createdIOUReportActionID, reportPreviewAction, onyxData} =
	getMoneyRequestInformation(currentChatReport, participant, comment, amount, currency, created, merchant, payeeAccountID, payeeEmail, receipt, undefined, category, tag, billable);

fix: allow creating Distance request from expense reports #30881

fix: allow creating Distance request from expense reports #30881

Uh oh!

Conversation

paultsimura commented Nov 4, 2023

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 4, 2023

Uh oh!

thesahindia commented Nov 7, 2023

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

thesahindia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 8, 2023

Uh oh!

tgolen Nov 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

paultsimura Nov 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tgolen Nov 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

paultsimura Nov 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 10, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 10, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 14, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants