Skip to content

Fix - Scan – RBR is not displayed in LHN when editing an amount to be higher than the scanned amount#57751

Merged
blimpich merged 11 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
FitseTLT:fix-missing-notice-type-violation-in-LHn
Apr 7, 2025
Merged

Fix - Scan – RBR is not displayed in LHN when editing an amount to be higher than the scanned amount#57751
blimpich merged 11 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
FitseTLT:fix-missing-notice-type-violation-in-LHn

Conversation

@FitseTLT

@FitseTLT FitseTLT commented Mar 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #57017
PROPOSAL: #57017 (comment)

Tests

  1. Create a new workspace
  2. Go to workplace chat
  3. Click on + icon > Submit expense > Scan
  4. Upload a digital receipt > Submit > Wait for the smart scan to be completed
  5. Once the smart scan is finished navigate to the expense details
  6. Click on the amount > edit the amount to be higher than the scanned amount > Save
  7. Notice that after a while a violation is displayed indicating the amount is higher than the scanned receipt
  8. Submit the expense
  9. Now verify the LHN of the workspace chat shows a red dot
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

Same as above

  • 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 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(themeColors.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
Android: mWeb Chrome aw
iOS: Native i
iOS: mWeb Safari iw
MacOS: Chrome / Safari w
MacOS: Desktop d

@FitseTLT FitseTLT requested a review from a team as a code owner March 4, 2025 13:26
@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested review from rojiphil and removed request for a team March 4, 2025 13:27
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Mar 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@rojiphil 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]

@rojiphil

rojiphil commented Mar 5, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@FitseTLT There are failures in unit tests that need to be addressed. Please have a look. Thanks

@FitseTLT

FitseTLT commented Mar 5, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Fixed

@rojiphil

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

There are also more inconsistencies in LHN RBR compared to the ReportPreview RBR logic here we also have missed smart scanning errors so we can also handle those missed cases to in the PR (similarly with MoneyRequestPreview which shows rbr for held transactions).

@FitseTLT Thanks for the PR. Just curious if the above mentioned changes were not needed here.

Add test for shouldDisplayViolationsRBRInLHN to assert that it handles notice type violations too

Did we miss adding a test case for this?

@FitseTLT

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

shouldDisplayViolationsRBRInLHN

@rojiphil we are already getting those errors here so not needed here 👍

const errors = getAllReportErrors(report, reportActions);

And I have added the test case. U can proceed.

@rojiphil

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@FitseTLT Is the Jest test failure related to our PR?

@FitseTLT

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Fixed

@rojiphil

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@FitseTLT Why does the RBR in LHN not show in the scenario as demonstrated in the following video?

57751-issue-001.mp4

@FitseTLT

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@rojiphil U must have been on another branch. On this branch it properly shows the RBR on LHN

2025-03-18.23-29-57.mp4

@rojiphil

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

On this branch it properly shows the RBR on LHN

Maybe it does but I can reproduce the problem. Can you please post a test video with the same steps as demonstrated in video?

@FitseTLT

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Here it is

2025-03-19.20-14-16.mp4

@FitseTLT

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Bump @rojiphil

@rojiphil

rojiphil commented Apr 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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 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.ts 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.
  • For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
  • 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari
57751-web-chrome-001.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
57751-desktop-001.mp4
Android: Native
57751-android-hybrid-001.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
57751-mweb-chrome-001.mp4
iOS: Native
57751-ios-hybrid-001.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
57751-mweb-safari-001.mp4

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

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.

Thanks @FitseTLT for the clarification. Strange that the expense report itself does not show any RBR but it has been like that for other errors too. Anyway, the issue here is that the parent report containing the report preview does not display the RBR (instead shows GBR) which is fixed now.

@blimpich Changes LGTM and works well too.
Over to you for review. Thanks.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested a review from blimpich April 7, 2025 12:17
@FitseTLT

FitseTLT commented Apr 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks @FitseTLT for the clarification. Strange that the expense report itself does not show any RBR but it has been like that for other errors too. Anyway, the issue here is that the parent report containing the report preview does not display the RBR (instead shows GBR) which is fixed now.

@blimpich Changes LGTM and works well too. Over to you for review. Thanks.

Yes we only show RBR in LHN on the top most report in the hierarchy (workspace chats) that is intentional 👍

@blimpich blimpich merged commit 32824c5 into Expensify:main Apr 7, 2025
@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Apr 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Apr 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.1.24-2 🚀

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

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Apr 9, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.1.24-10 🚀

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

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Apr 9, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.1.24-10 🚀

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

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.

4 participants