Use error prop for violations for consistent styling

[trevor-coleman]

Details

Initially error messages for violations were added as a component under the input. This resulted in odd spacing and behaviour inconsistent with other inputs in the application.

This PR moves the error messages into the error prop of the input where it is available.

Because the logic for seelcting which error message to display was getting complicated, I gathered it into a getErrorForField function.

I also included the fix for #34773 since it was small and related.

Important

Due to an issue outside the scope of this PR, violations will not appear immediately on some fields.

To get them to update you will need to browse away from the MoneyRequestView and back, as that will trigger the necessary update.

This issue should be solved soon -- it may even be solved before you read this! So if all the expected violations appear immediately in your tests, you can to safely ignore the instructions to browse away and back.

Fixed Issues

$ #33527
$ #34773

Tests

Create a workspace and enable violations for the policy.

Important

All accounts used in this test need to have the Violations beta enabled in the back end in order to receive the correct violations. Ask @cead22 if you need to get accounts added to the beta.

1. Turn on the Violations beta (or set canUseViolations to true)

2. Go to OldDot and open or create a Control policy

3. Enable violations for the workspace in Settings > [Workspace] > Expenses

   1. Expense Violations: true

4. Set up requirements that will a violation on every field:

   Section	Settings
   Expenses	Max Expense Age: 30 days Max Expense Amount: $100 Receipt Required Amount: $200
   Categories	People Must Categorize Expenses: ON Set limit for "Advertising" category to $50 Set descriptions required for "Advertising"
   Tags	People Must Tag Expenses: ON Add a tag "TestTag"

5. Enable the policy’s expense chat:

   1. Go to the policy page

   2. In the JS console with the policy open do:

      p = Policy.getCurrent();
      p.policy.isPolicyExpenseChatEnabled = "true";
      p.save();

   3. Invite an employee to the policy

   4. Return to New Dot

   5. Sign into the employee account you just added to the policy

A. First Money Request

1. As the employee go through the money request flow, create the following money request under that policy:

   Request 1

   • Receipt - don't include a receipt
   • Amount - $500
   • Category - None
   • Date - 2013-01-01
   • Tag - None
   • Description - leave blank

2. Click another option in the LHN, then browse back to the MoneyRequestView and and check that the errors in the table below are shown.

Note

A refresh alone will not be enough to get the violations to appear. You will need to browse to another chat and then back to the money request to get the violations to show. (Local processing for violations is being added in a separate PR).

Field	Error
Receipt	"Receipt required"
Amount	"Amount greater than $100/person limit"
Date	"Date older than 0 days" (note: "0 days" is a backend bug, but an issue has been opened to address it)
Tag	"Missing Tag"
Category	"Missing Category

B. Changes to show category violations

1. Update the money to:

   • change the amount to $80
   • change the category to "Advertising"

2. Click another option in the LHN, then browse back to MoneyRequestView and check that the errors in the table below are shown.

Note

Violations will not show until you browse away and come back.

Note

Errors from previous step will still be visible.

Field	Error
Amount	"Amount over C$50.00/person category limit"
Description	"Description required for selected category"
Tag	"Missing Tag"

C. Changes to clear violations

1. Update the money to:

   • change the category to "Equipment"
   • Set the tag to "TestTag"
   • Set Date to a date within 30 days

2. Click another option in the LHN, then browse back to the MoneyRequestView and check that violation messages are NOT shown on amount, category, description, and tag fields.

Note

Violations will not be cleared until you browse away and come back.

Note

The receipt field will still show a violation.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

This will not work offline yet, as we are waiting for local processing of violations to be added in a separate PR.

QA Steps

• Same as tests above

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 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 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

A. First Money Request

B. Changes to show category violations

C. Changes to clear violations

D. Check receipt violations

Android: mWeb Chrome

A. First Money Request

B. Changes to show category violations

C. Changes to clear violations

D. Check receipt violations

iOS: Native

A. First Money Request

B. Changes to show category violations

C. Changes to clear violations

D. Check receipt violations

iOS: mWeb Safari

A. First Money Request

B. Changes to show category violations

C. Changes to clear violations

D. Check receipt violations

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

A. First Money Request

B. Changes to show category violations

C. Changes to clear violations

D. Check receipt violations

MacOS: Desktop

A. First Money Request

B. Changes to show category violations

C. Changes to clear violations

D. Check receipt violations

[melvin-bot]

@dubielzyk-expensify @cubuspl42 One of you needs to 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]

[trevor-coleman]

@cead22 -- This is ready to go!

[trevor-coleman]

Merged in latest main and it seems to have fixed the failing performance test.

[cead22]

I think it's possible everything is working correctly, but if you can share the workspace IDs you're using, and maybe more specifically what you think it's not working, I can confirm.

For the things that look strange there

• We have a feature that works in the back end called auto categorization or implicit categorization, and in short if you set Advertising as the category for a request with the merchant set to A, the next time you create a request with a merchant set to A and don't categorize it, we'll infer that the category should be Advertising
• You don't see this for other requests, eg the one with merchant set to B, because it's not the same merchant as A
• Submitting is separate from violations so I don't know if there's anything wrong there, but even unsubmitted requests should show violations, so that seems to be working fine

[jakub-trzebiatowski]

I don't want to block this PR. I'll go through all the tests and let you decide whether the videos' results are correct.

[cead22]

Feel free to ask any questions and I'll be happy to add clarity where I can, I know there's a lot of moving parts and some non-obvious things like implicit categorization that makes things confusing

[jakub-trzebiatowski]

A.

a-first-money-request.mp4

B.

b-changes-to-show-category-violations.mp4

C.

c-changes-to-clear-violations.mp4

D.

d-check-receipt-violations.mp4

---

Would you take a look at the test D? I couldn't get the "Amount is greater than scanned receipt" text to show up.

[trevor-coleman]

Awesome! Glad we got all that sorted. Let me look into the scanning one.

[cead22]

I think that's happening because we're not showing that violation (by design) on money request while the receipt is scanning. We only show it after the receipt finishes scanning.

Can you check again to see if it's showing now? I checked the database and it looks like SmartScan completed, and looking at the api response for a command to load violations, I see the violation in there now

[jakub-trzebiatowski]

while the receipt is scanning

It can be seen on the video that the receipt has finished scanning from the user's perspective. The price 23.19 comes from the receipt (although the currency got messed up).

[cead22]

It can be seen on the video that the receipt has finished scanning from the user's perspective

Yes, when users input the data being scanned manually, the request looks like it's not scanning, but I believe we continue the scan in the background.

Is the violation showing now?

The price 23.19 comes from the receipt (although the currency got messed up).

Can you share more details about this, are you pointing to a specific error or problem with the PR? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, I'm just trying to figure out if things are working correctly, and so far it seems like they are

[trevor-coleman]

I think I've figured it out -- the modifiedAmount violation is a notice type violation, so it won't be displayed.

That notice type filter was part of a separate issue that I brought into this PR after the test instructions were written, and I didn't realize modifiedAmount was that kind of violation.

I've removed section D from the test instructions, and I think we are now passing all tests.

Just need to merge in main to fix the lint error and we are good.

[cead22]

Awesome sauce!

[trevor-coleman]

Main is merged, and now comes the time of anxious waiting for the CI checks to complete.

[cead22]

Am I crazy or is the check for the reviewer checklist missing?

[situchan]

(just for testing checks)
Is reviewer checklist missing

[jakub-trzebiatowski]

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(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 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 reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

violations-android-compressed.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

violations-android-web-compressed.mp4

iOS: Native

violations-ios-compressed.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

violations-ios-web-compressed.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

A.

a-first-money-request.mp4

B.

b-changes-to-show-category-violations.mp4

C.

c-changes-to-clear-violations.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

[trevor-coleman]

Merged main and resovled conflict.

[trevor-coleman]

So close!

[cead22]

Yeah I just wanted to test dekstop becasue I didn't see screenshots/videos in the reviewer checklist. I added them now

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.4.41-12 🚀

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