[HOLD for payment 2024-11-20] [$250] Track expense - Track expense options are still present in report header after it is submitted

[IuliiaHerets]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.0.59-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N/A - new feature, doesn't exist in prod
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: Y
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Launch ND or hybrid app.
2. Go to self DM.
3. Track a manual expense.
4. Go to Search.
5. Tap on the track expense in Step 3.
6. Open report header.
7. Tap Categorize it.
8. Select a workspace, category, enter merchant and tap Submit.
9. Reopen the submitted expense in Step 8 in Search.
10. Note that header subtitle is updated to the workspace expense report.
11. Tap on the report header.

Expected Result:

Track expense options will no longer appear in report header when the report is opened in Search after it is submitted to workspace.

Actual Result:

Track expense options still appear in report header when the report is opened in Search after it is submitted to workspace.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6658621_1731057460972.ScreenRecording_11-08-2024_17-06-50_1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021854881368705526819
• Upwork Job ID: 1854881368705526819
• Last Price Increase: 2024-11-08
• Automatic offers:
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 104806719
• suneox | Contributor | 104835399

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @jliexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @youssef-lr (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @jliexpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[melvin-bot]

💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021854881368705526819

[Julesssss]

Possibly linked to this issue

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @sobitneupane (External)

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Track expense options still appear in report header when the report is opened in Search after it is submitted to workspace.

What is the root cause of that problem?

After we categorize a track expense, the type of IOU action still is track. Then in the report detail of the transaction thread report, isTrackExpenseReport is still true then Track expense options are still present.

App/src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

Line 135 in d0133d1

const isTrackExpenseReport = ReportUtils.isTrackExpenseReport(report);

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We should also check to only return true if the parent report is the selfDM

if (isThread(report)) {
    const selfDMReportID = findSelfDMReportID();
    const parentReportAction = allReportActions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${report.parentReportID}`]?.[report.parentReportActionID];
    return !isEmptyObject(parentReportAction) && selfDMReportID === report.parentReportID && ReportActionsUtils.isTrackExpenseAction(parentReportAction);
}

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 1638 in d0133d1

return !isEmptyObject(parentReportAction) && ReportActionsUtils.isTrackExpenseAction(parentReportAction);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

When we move a track expense to WS, we should change the type in originalMessage of the IOU action to create

[nkdengineer]

@Julesssss I can create a PR to fix this blocker ASAP if assigned.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @nkdengineer 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[Julesssss]

Thanks @nkdengineer, we'll be able to review on monday

[nkdengineer]

Thanks, will raise the PR soon.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @suneox 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.59-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Prevent showing track expense option for submitted track expense #52274

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-18. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @suneox requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @nkdengineer requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@suneox @jliexpensify The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.60-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Prevent showing track expense option for submitted track expense #52274

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-20. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @suneox requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @nkdengineer requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@suneox @jliexpensify @suneox The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[suneox]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production
• 2b. Reported on staging (deploy blocker)
• 2c. Reported on both staging and production
• 2d. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

  Link to comment: I don’t think there's a PR responsible for this, as it seems to be a missing case from when the new feature was implemented. The original author might not have been aware of the change, but I've provided a reason in the implementation PR https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/37282/files#r1846901471

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

  Link to discussion: N/A

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again. N/A