Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enable distance splits #42302

Merged
merged 31 commits into from
Aug 7, 2024
Merged

Enable distance splits #42302

merged 31 commits into from
Aug 7, 2024

Conversation

neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini commented May 16, 2024

Details

Enable splitting distance expenses. The goal is to make sure that the feature works for the mainline cases, that it doesn't break existing split flows, and that it's still hidden by the beta. There will be a number of small bugs that already exist on main and probably a few with this new feature. In order to keep things moving, these bugs will be listed and issues will be created to fix them with help from the community before removing the beta.

Fixed Issues

$ #36967
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Known bugs on main:
While testing please take these into consideration and ignore them since they were not caused by this PR.

  • Chats will show blank and won't load report actions. Sometimes switching chats will fix this.
  • [$500] [Dev] Infinite receipt loading spinner with backend dev environment #44692
    • Now, receipt images don't load at all
  • Splitting with an existing group chat shortly after sign in fails due to incorrect optimistic 1:1 chat ID, since the existing DM isn't in the allReports cache.
  • global create allows submit expense P2P distance outside of beta

New bugs to fix later
Maybe new, maybe happen on main

  • Split with new workspace, error, selected rate has been deleted
  • Split with existing workspace, multiple previews displayed
  • receipt image doesn't display in split details (related to other receipt issues on dev)

A. Split distance with new accounts

  1. Sign into an account on the p2pDistanceRequests beta
  2. Click the green plus, Split expense
  3. Choose distance, enter 2 waypoints, click Next
  4. Enter 2 new accounts and select them for the split
  5. Verify that the split on the confirmation page looks good and makes sense, then save it
  6. Verify that a new group chat is created and you are navigated to it
  7. Verify the new split distance expense is displayed with a route receipt image, the type "Distance", an amount, merchant in the correct distance format, the split participant avatars, and the "Your split" text.
  8. Click on the split expense
  9. Verify the split details page opens showing who its paid by, the participants, the route receipt, amount and description.
  10. Click show more
  11. Verify the merchant and date show
  12. Go to a DM with one of the split participants
  13. Verify the split expense shows with the route, " owes:" text, amount, and merchant. Verify the amount is an even split of the total. Verify the distance is also a split of the total and multiplies times the rate to equal the split amount.
  14. Click on it to open the transaction thread
  15. Verify the details there look correct

B. Workspace distance split

  1. Sign into an account on the p2pDistanceRequests beta
  2. Split a distance expense with a workspace
  3. Verify that the split on the confirmation page looks good and makes sense, then save it
  4. Verify the split expense is created in the workspace chat
  5. Verify the new split distance expense is displayed with a route receipt image, the type "Distance", an amount, merchant in the correct distance format, the split participant avatars, and the "Your split" text.
  6. Click on the split expense
  7. Verify the split details page opens showing who its paid by, the participants, the route receipt, amount and description.
  8. Click show more
  9. Verify the merchant and date show

C. Manual split with existing accounts

  1. Split an expense manually
  2. Verify everything looks right

D. Verify splits without the p2pDistanceRequests beta

  1. Sign into an account not on the p2pDistanceRequests beta, or disable the beta in the frontend code
  2. Click green plus, split expense
  3. Verify that only manual and scan appear as options

E. Split with an existing group

  1. Create a group chat
  2. Split a distance expense with them
  3. Verify it's created properly

F. Manual split new accounts

  1. Split an expense manually
  2. Enter emails that haven't signed up yet
  3. Verify everything looks right
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Skipping these for now since the existing tests are a lot to run through already. I'm pretty sure it will work well offline, but we can fine tune that while the feature is still under beta and before adding the regression tests for the feature.

QA Steps

Same as tests. If you find any issues please tag me in Slack and make sure they are not labeled as a deploy blocker, unless it's an issue that happens outside of the beta.

  • 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

I only tested on web because the changes are platform independent, and C+ will help test all platforms.

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

A

splitA.mp4

B

splitB1080.mov

C

splitC.mov

D

splitD.mov

E

splitE.mp4

F

splitF.mov
MacOS: Desktop

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini self-assigned this May 16, 2024
@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini marked this pull request as ready for review July 10, 2024 16:58
@neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @mananjadhav. Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. I just made one small change for clean up, merged main, and now I think it's all working well. Please test again and let me know if you have any problems. Also please include reproduction steps for any bugs you find.

edit-amount-success.mov
distance-split-existing.mov

While I wait for your next review I will re-test the bugs I found in this branch and on main and report them.

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

thanks @neil-marcellini. I'll review and test this again. I'll put in the reproduction steps for future reports but several of these looked unrelated to the PR.

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

Starting on this now.

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

mananjadhav commented Aug 6, 2024

@neil-marcellini We can skip for this one, but offline tests won't work. If we create an offline distance split, we don't have the amount and the splits throw an error: The sum of splits must equal the total amount..

Reproduction Steps:

  1. Sign into an account on the p2pDistanceRequests beta
  2. Go offline.
  3. Click the FAB, Split expense.
  4. Choose distance, enter 2 waypoints, click Next.
  5. Enter 2 new accounts and select them for the split.
  6. Verify whether you're able to add split the amounts.
image
web-offline-distance-split.mov

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

Just finished testing different scenarios on web and everything else looks good. Highlighted the offline case in the previous comment.

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

mananjadhav commented Aug 6, 2024

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-distance-split.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
mweb-chrome-distance-split.mov
iOS: Native
ios-distance-split-2.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
mweb-safari-distance-split.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Distance Split

web-distance-split_y27cNsyv.mp4

Distance Split Other

web-distance-split-others_GnBaJ7dl.mp4

Offline Split -- doesn't work

web-offline-distance-split.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop-distance-split_xRgJMAN8.mp4

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from arosiclair August 6, 2024 19:33
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 6, 2024

@arosiclair 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]

Copy link
Contributor

@arosiclair arosiclair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@arosiclair arosiclair merged commit 65bca91 into main Aug 7, 2024
17 checks passed
@arosiclair arosiclair deleted the neil-distance-split branch August 7, 2024 13:19
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2024

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 9.0.18-0 🚀

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

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like there is a bug where the QAB distance split uses 'SplitBill' endpoint when it should use 'CreateDistanceRequest' #47021.

@pecanoro
Copy link
Contributor

pecanoro commented Aug 8, 2024

This PR also broke TrackExpense on DMs since it started calling the wrong endpoint: #47042 (comment)

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.18-10 🚀

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

receipt,
filename,
receipt: receipt?.source ? {source: receipt.source, state: receipt.state ?? CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.SCANREADY} : {},
filename: receipt?.source ?? receipt?.name ?? filename,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We forgot to enforce the filename as a string here which led to crash in iOS. Details #47022

playSound(SOUNDS.DONE);

if (isDistanceRequest && !isMovingTransactionFromTrackExpense) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Moving this createDistanceRequest call here caused an error in #47042 when tracking a distance expense as we end up calling CreateDistanceRequest here instead of trackExpense.

@@ -3849,7 +3751,7 @@ function trackExpense(

function getOrCreateOptimisticSplitChatReport(existingSplitChatReportID: string, participants: Participant[], participantAccountIDs: number[], currentUserAccountID: number) {
// The existing chat report could be passed as reportID or exist on the sole "participant" (in this case a report option)
const existingChatReportID = existingSplitChatReportID || participants[0].reportID;
const existingChatReportID = existingSplitChatReportID ?? participants[0].reportID ?? '';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi team. Coming from this issue #47159. Be careful when change to using "??", because if existingSplitChatReportID is an empty string, it won't fallback to participants[0].reportID. For more details: #47159 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.