Skip to content

Update empty field check logic #26643

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
MariaHCD merged 3 commits into from
Sep 4, 2023
+9 −3
Merged

Update empty field check logic #26643

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1fb0c2b
Update empty field check logic
Gonals Sep 4, 2023
43eaa87
prettier
Gonals Sep 4, 2023
60576f0
Merge branch 'main' into alberto-checkfields
Gonals Sep 4, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 9 additions & 3 deletions src/libs/TransactionUtils.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -89,8 +89,14 @@ function hasReceipt(transaction) {
* @param {Object} transaction
* @returns {Boolean}
*/
function areModifiedFieldsPopulated(transaction) {
return transaction.modifiedMerchant !== CONST.TRANSACTION.UNKNOWN_MERCHANT && transaction.modifiedAmount !== 0 && transaction.modifiedCreated !== '';
function areRequiredFieldsEmpty(transaction) {

@mountiny mountiny Sep 4, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We will have conflicts with this one #26603 lets merge that first and sync iup this branch with it

@Gonals Gonals Sep 4, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That one doesn't touch TransactionUtils 😕

@Gonals Gonals Sep 4, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mountiny @MariaHCD no conflicts 😁

@mountiny mountiny Sep 4, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it adds the PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT thats what I meant, maybe there will be no conflict, but I just wanted to go in order 😅 been waiting hours for someone to merge it

@Gonals Gonals Sep 4, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, I added at the exact same spot and with the same name on purpose, to avoid conflicts 😁

return (
transaction.modifiedMerchant === CONST.TRANSACTION.UNKNOWN_MERCHANT ||
(transaction.modifiedMerchant === '' &&
(transaction.merchant === CONST.TRANSACTION.UNKNOWN_MERCHANT || transaction.merchant === '' || transaction.merchant === CONST.TRANSACTION.PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT)) ||
(transaction.modifiedAmount === 0 && transaction.amount === 0) ||
(transaction.modifiedCreated === '' && transaction.created === '')
);
}

/**
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -262,7 +268,7 @@ function isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) {
* @returns {Boolean}
*/
function hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction) {
return hasReceipt(transaction) && !isDistanceRequest(transaction) && !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && !areModifiedFieldsPopulated(transaction);
return hasReceipt(transaction) && !isDistanceRequest(transaction) && !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && areRequiredFieldsEmpty(transaction);
}

/**
Expand Down