Tag settings: Billable #47019 by Guccio163 · Pull Request #48184 · Expensify/App

Guccio163 · 2024-08-28T14:52:59Z

Details

This PR adds new switch do Tag settings that allows user to easily enable/disable tracking billing expenses:

It also changes Tags description in Workspace settings and fixes some bugs with alignment and API props.

Fixed Issues

$ #47019
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Go to /settings/workspaces/:policyID/tags/settings
Check if switches are aligned correctly
Switch Track billable expenses couple times - DisablePolicyBillableExpenses on off and SetPolicyBillableMode on on should be visible in network debugger, switch should stay on\off after changing
Switch to offline mode - Track billable expenses switch should grey out after clicking (but not without click)

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mWeb-android.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mWeb-ios.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

…-fork into Guccio/47019-TagSettingsBillable

Guccio163 · 2024-08-28T15:42:39Z

PR is working correctly like it should, there are 3 issues to clarify ~~and 1 to correct~~:

To clarify:

Function for disabling Billable Expenses is called DisableWorkspaceBillableExpenses in doc, but API accepts only DisablePolicyBillableExpenses, I left it with the working name.
In doc there is written that function above shouldn't take any parameters; I left it with 1 parameter which is policyID to identify workspace.
In doc there is written that "If [policy.disabledFields.defaultBillable is] true this toggle would be disabled "; I suppose it means that it should be off, not disabled then and that's how it works right now; should this button be disabled in some condition?

To correct:

~~Need to add translations to Classify costs and track billable expenses. and Track billable expenses, second one is hardcoded right now~~

cc: @marcaaron

Guccio163 · 2024-08-29T08:23:22Z

After change in /settings/workspaces/{policyID}/tags/settings Switches are not aligned correctly yet, I'll fix it in a while; Is:

Should be:

The misalignment is visible only the button above is hovered 🔎

WojtekBoman

LGTM, left some small comments

melvin-bot · 2024-08-29T13:09:36Z

@situchan 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]

Guccio163 · 2024-08-29T13:11:51Z

Also @shawnborton if you could take a peek if the switches look good 👀🙏

shawnborton · 2024-08-29T13:23:56Z

Design-wise this looks okay. Why does the toggle become locked out of curiosity?

Guccio163 · 2024-08-29T13:30:03Z

I'm not sure about the top switch because I didn't get into it; this PR is only about 'Track billable expenses' one

shawnborton · 2024-08-29T13:31:23Z

Cool cool, well that toggle looks good to me :)

situchan · 2024-08-29T20:46:27Z

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.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

mchrome.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

msafari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

marcaaron · 2024-08-30T00:29:19Z

Function for disabling Billable Expenses is called DisableWorkspaceBillableExpenses in doc, but API accepts only DisablePolicyBillableExpenses, I left it with the working name.

👍

In doc there is written that function above shouldn't take any parameters; I left it with 1 parameter which is policyID to identify workspace.

👍

In doc there is written that "If [policy.disabledFields.defaultBillable is] true this toggle would be disabled "; I suppose it means that it should be off, not disabled then and that's how it works right now; should this button be disabled in some condition?

Right, we really meant, "toggled off". And no, it should never be "disabled".

situchan

Looks good

Guccio163 · 2024-08-30T08:45:08Z

Also, on the request of @WojtekBoman I quickly fixed #48266 bug, it required changing list items' order, but doesn't affect this PR :)

Screen.Recording.2024-08-30.at.10.41.52.mov

…-fork into Guccio/47019-TagSettingsBillable

marcaaron

LGTM, had a couple of small notes. Also, I'm not sure we have had the translations reviewed yet. I'll ask again for some help.

marcaaron · 2024-08-30T00:37:01Z

+    if (policy?.disabledFields?.defaultBillable) {
+        return policy?.pendingFields?.disabledFields ?? policy?.pendingFields?.defaultBillable;
+    }
+    return policy?.pendingFields?.disabledFields;


Could we add some comment here to explain the slightly confusing interaction between disabledFields.defaultBillable and defaultBillable? In particular, it's hard to see why we would fallback to a pendingFields.defaultBillable.

Just added, please take a peek if it's clear

I was looking more for something like "why" it works this way. I am not sure if I understood why we have a billableExpensesPending() method instead of checking for our possible "pending" situations.

To give some explanation of the feature itself:

if we ever have policy.disabledFields.defaultBillable that means the feature is disabled entirely. If we have policy.defaultBillable === true then policy.disabledFields.defaultBillable must be false and that means we will always "default to billable". If policy.defaultBillable === false then we will default to "non-billable".

After explaining that, does it make sense to have a fallback to policy?.pendingFields?.defaultBillable when we are "disabled"? I would think not because the only value that matters is the policy.pendingFields.disabledFields.defaultBillable for that particular case.

So I think the logic would be more like:

// The field is disabled - only show the "pending" for the disabled pending action because the defaultBillable state is not relevant in this case. if (policy.disabledFields.defaultBillable) { return policy.pendingFields.disabledFields; } // Otherwise, we are changing the `defaultBillable` so look at this field only. return policy.pendingFields.defaultBillable;

WDYT?

Guccio163 · 2024-09-03T18:14:41Z

The translations were already reviewed on Slack with the help of @pecanoro, but I can change them to fit @iwiznia if you wish 👍

iwiznia · 2024-09-03T18:20:26Z

Did not know that, @marcaaron asked for it in slack. Of course 2 translators means 2 different translations.

Co-authored-by: Ionatan Wiznia <iwiznia@hotmail.com>

Co-authored-by: Marc Glasser <marc.aaron.glasser@gmail.com>

Guccio163 · 2024-09-03T18:29:43Z

No problem, I just added requested changes, @marcaaron they ~~should pass~~ just passed the tests 👌 Also I just deleted some comments I left in the previous PR, just using the occasion to clean it

…-fork into Guccio/47019-TagSettingsBillable

marcaaron · 2024-09-03T19:31:00Z

The translations were already reviewed on Slack with the help of @pecanoro, but I can change them to fit @iwiznia if you wish 👍

Maybe the long weekend confused me, but where did this happen? 😄
AFAICT these have not been reviewed yet, or else we'd see @pecanoro as a reviewer here 🤔

Guccio163 · 2024-09-03T19:33:41Z

I asked for them here, but I guess it doesn't matter much anymore since @iwiznia came by, should I tag the translations reviewer in the PR next time?

marcaaron

Changes LGTM though I am not so sure about billableExpensesPending()

marcaaron · 2024-09-03T19:32:23Z

-    //         },
-    //     ],
-    //     [searchAdvancedFilters, translate, cardList, taxRates, personalDetails, reports],
-    // );


Hmm, what is happening here? 🤔

Ah yes, like I mentioned above this is a leftover after my previous PR; I was resolving conflicts at the Friday evening and left it by mistake so I'm deleting it here as the first occasion 😅

marcaaron · 2024-09-03T19:44:37Z

+    if (policy?.disabledFields?.defaultBillable) {
+        return policy?.pendingFields?.disabledFields ?? policy?.pendingFields?.defaultBillable;
+    }
+    return policy?.pendingFields?.disabledFields;


I was looking more for something like "why" it works this way. I am not sure if I understood why we have a billableExpensesPending() method instead of checking for our possible "pending" situations.

To give some explanation of the feature itself:

if we ever have policy.disabledFields.defaultBillable that means the feature is disabled entirely. If we have policy.defaultBillable === true then policy.disabledFields.defaultBillable must be false and that means we will always "default to billable". If policy.defaultBillable === false then we will default to "non-billable".

After explaining that, does it make sense to have a fallback to policy?.pendingFields?.defaultBillable when we are "disabled"? I would think not because the only value that matters is the policy.pendingFields.disabledFields.defaultBillable for that particular case.

marcaaron · 2024-09-03T19:51:03Z

+    if (policy?.disabledFields?.defaultBillable) {
+        return policy?.pendingFields?.disabledFields ?? policy?.pendingFields?.defaultBillable;
+    }
+    return policy?.pendingFields?.disabledFields;


So I think the logic would be more like:

// The field is disabled - only show the "pending" for the disabled pending action because the defaultBillable state is not relevant in this case. if (policy.disabledFields.defaultBillable) { return policy.pendingFields.disabledFields; } // Otherwise, we are changing the `defaultBillable` so look at this field only. return policy.pendingFields.defaultBillable;

WDYT?

marcaaron · 2024-09-03T19:55:26Z

I asked for them here, but I guess it doesn't matter much anymore since @iwiznia came by, should I tag the translations reviewer in the PR next time?

All good, thanks. Yes, please next time leave either a note on the PR that the translations were approved, or tag the PR reviewers in Slack on the thread, or have the translations reviewer on the PR itself. Any of those would work. Thanks!

Guccio163 · 2024-09-03T20:07:28Z

After explaining that, does it make sense to have a fallback to policy?.pendingFields?.defaultBillable when we are "disabled"? I would think not because the only value that matters is the policy.pendingFields.disabledFields.defaultBillable for that particular case.

I left both values to check because both are edited, so I wanted to be sure both are not pending. Moreover I think it looks a bit more understandable for someone without context why we check them both and not only one, but I'm not strongly against change. If you think it would be cleaner with only one check I can change it in no time ;)

Co-authored-by: Marc Glasser <marc.aaron.glasser@gmail.com>

marcaaron · 2024-09-03T20:20:29Z

I left both values to check because both are edited, so I wanted to be sure both are not pending. Moreover I think it looks a bit more understandable for someone without context why we check them both and not only one, but I'm not strongly against change. If you think it would be cleaner with only one check I can change it in no time ;)

Your reasoning is fine. I think there's enough context here now in case someone is really confused in the future 😄

changes applied

OSBotify · 2024-09-03T20:45:47Z

✋ 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 · 2024-09-03T23:43:21Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.0.29-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-09-05T19:17:23Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.0.29-12 🚀

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

Guccio163 added 4 commits August 28, 2024 16:18

working with other function's name and parameter

56900c5

add conditional display to switch, delete props from fetch

2915913

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

5e68c5a

…-fork into Guccio/47019-TagSettingsBillable

add areRulesEnables

9ea511e

Guccio163 added 2 commits August 28, 2024 17:57

pending actions added

7b4cf4b

translations ready

57de93b

WojtekBoman approved these changes Aug 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/API/parameters/DisablePolicyBillableMode.ts Outdated

Comment thread src/pages/workspace/tags/WorkspaceTagsSettingsPage.tsx Outdated

Comment thread src/pages/workspace/tags/WorkspaceTagsSettingsPage.tsx Outdated

Guccio163 added 5 commits August 29, 2024 11:11

fix /tags/settings spacing

d09cbc9

internal review fixes

13a7ff7

Policy fixes

1f12c07

spacing fix 2

3f9a9e5

fix styles 3, ts and pendingFields

5ba8018

Guccio163 marked this pull request as ready for review August 29, 2024 13:09

Guccio163 requested a review from a team as a code owner August 29, 2024 13:09

melvin-bot Bot requested review from situchan and removed request for a team August 29, 2024 13:09

Guccio163 mentioned this pull request Aug 29, 2024

[$250] [OldDot Rules Migration] Tag settings: Billable #47019

Closed

situchan approved these changes Aug 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/pages/workspace/tags/WorkspaceTagsSettingsPage.tsx Outdated

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from marcaaron August 30, 2024 02:21

extract toggleBillableExpenses

8353c1f

fix Expensify#48266 bug

6a6c173

Guccio163 mentioned this pull request Aug 30, 2024

Rules - Rules in left hand navigation does not follow the order in More features list #48266

Closed

6 tasks

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

b47e78c

…-fork into Guccio/47019-TagSettingsBillable

marcaaron reviewed Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron assigned Guccio163 Sep 3, 2024

iwiznia previously requested changes Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/languages/es.ts Outdated

Comment thread src/languages/es.ts Outdated

Guccio163 and others added 4 commits September 3, 2024 20:24

Update src/languages/es.ts

fffe01d

Co-authored-by: Ionatan Wiznia <iwiznia@hotmail.com>

Update src/languages/es.ts

f48ed66

Co-authored-by: Ionatan Wiznia <iwiznia@hotmail.com>

Update src/libs/actions/Policy/Policy.ts

130a120

Co-authored-by: Marc Glasser <marc.aaron.glasser@gmail.com>

billableExpensesPending explanation

4c152dd

Guccio163 added 2 commits September 3, 2024 20:32

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:software-mansion-labs/expensify-app…

18411d4

…-fork into Guccio/47019-TagSettingsBillable

comments deletion

d689b81

marcaaron requested changes Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

Update src/pages/workspace/tags/WorkspaceTagsSettingsPage.tsx

bb30c66

Co-authored-by: Marc Glasser <marc.aaron.glasser@gmail.com>

marcaaron approved these changes Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron merged commit 227aa13 into Expensify:main Sep 3, 2024

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-09-03 #48515

Closed

68 tasks

Krishna2323 mentioned this pull request May 28, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-05-29] [$250] Unable to mark expenses as billable #88153

Closed

7 tasks

Conversation

Guccio163 commented Aug 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Aug 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

To clarify:

To correct:

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Aug 29, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

WojtekBoman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Aug 29, 2024

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Aug 29, 2024

Uh oh!

shawnborton commented Aug 29, 2024

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Aug 29, 2024

Uh oh!

shawnborton commented Aug 29, 2024

Uh oh!

situchan commented Aug 29, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

marcaaron commented Aug 30, 2024

Uh oh!

situchan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Aug 30, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Sep 3, 2024

Uh oh!

iwiznia commented Sep 3, 2024

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Sep 3, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcaaron commented Sep 3, 2024

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Sep 3, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Guccio163 commented Aug 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Guccio163 commented Aug 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Guccio163 commented Aug 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

situchan commented Aug 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Guccio163 commented Aug 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Guccio163 commented Sep 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Guccio163 commented Sep 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading