Fix - Calculate missing comment for category on the client by FitseTLT · Pull Request #62124 · Expensify/App

FitseTLT · 2025-05-15T16:55:53Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #61790
PROPOSAL: #61790 (comment)

Tests

Precondition:
Workspace with Rules enabled

Go to Categories and press on any category
Then set the category rule with a rule set that requires a description, flags amounts over $200, and always requires receipt (The workspace rule shouldn't require receipts as part of its rules, only the category above should)
Create a money request for $300 without description and category
Turn offline and change the category to the one in (1)
Verify the violations "Description required for selected category", "receipt required", and "amount over $200/person category limit" are shown
Add a description and update the amount to $10
Verify the violations disappear

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

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

2025-05-15.22-18-33.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

2025-05-15.22-19-38.mp4

iOS: Native

2025-05-15.19-01-42.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

2025-05-15.19-00-52.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

2025-05-15.18-53-24.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

2025-05-15.18-58-37.mp4

melvin-bot · 2025-05-15T16:55:59Z

@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 · 2025-05-16T09:05:05Z

@FitseTLT Thanks for the PR. When offline, we have an issue where the receipt required violation does not go away after adding a receipt. However, this violation does go away online. Please have a look.

62124-receiptrequired-issue.mp4

FitseTLT · 2025-05-19T11:52:56Z

@FitseTLT Thanks for the PR. When offline, we have an issue where the receipt required violation does not go away after adding a receipt. However, this violation does go away online. Please have a look.

62124-receiptrequired-issue.mp4

Nice catch @rojiphil Solved now

rojiphil · 2025-05-20T10:27:46Z

Thanks @FitseTLT for the update. But it looks like there is some weird edge case that results in a dummy receipt. Looks like some cleanup was not complete. And I do not know what exactly caused this as I was randomly testing the receipt addition/removal. But a signout/signin resolves this as the onyx is cleared. Any idea why this comes up?

62124-edge-case-issue.mp4

FitseTLT · 2025-05-20T20:14:26Z

Thanks @FitseTLT for the update. But it looks like there is some weird edge case that results in a dummy receipt. Looks like some cleanup was not complete. And I do not know what exactly caused this as I was randomly testing the receipt addition/removal. But a signout/signin resolves this as the onyx is cleared. Any idea why this comes up?

62124-edge-case-issue.mp4

Couldn't reproduce it. I hardly believe it could be related to our PR.

2025-05-20.23-12-40.mp4

rojiphil · 2025-05-22T13:03:44Z

Couldn't reproduce it. I hardly believe it could be related to our PR.

I can reproduce this consistently now. We just need to go offline and then delete an existing receipt. If we update the amount again, we will face the issue of a dummy receipt. But I also agree that it is already in production and unrelated to our PR. However, since our use case demands to show Receipt required when needed, this will result in not showing the required message even when the receipt is not uploaded. So, I think it’s better to fix this here. What do you think?

62124-ios-hybrid-001.mp4

FitseTLT · 2025-05-27T15:46:18Z

Yes the root cause is due to not resetting the receipt prop here

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 10031 to 10033 in cc85c2a

    
           receipt: { 
        
               source: '', 
        
           },

Which in turn made getUpdatedTransaction to add the open receipt state here

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 510 to 519 in cc85c2a

    
           if ( 
        
               shouldUpdateReceiptState && 
        
               shouldStopSmartscan && 
        
               transaction?.receipt && 
        
               Object.keys(transaction.receipt).length > 0 && 
        
               transaction?.receipt?.state !== CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.OPEN && 
        
               updatedTransaction.receipt 
        
           ) { 
        
               updatedTransaction.receipt.state = CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.OPEN; 
        
           }

Now it is fixed. But it is totally out of scope and should be considered in the payment as we fixed a totally different bug which of course is worthy of fixing.

rojiphil · 2025-05-28T11:03:45Z

But it is totally out of scope and should be considered in the payment as we fixed a totally different bug which of course is worthy of fixing.

Thanks @FitseTLT for the fix. Will review soon. Regarding the payment, we can request the same at the time of BZ checklist.

rojiphil · 2025-05-29T13:04:36Z

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

62124-web-chrome-002.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

62124-desktop-001.mp4

Android: Native

Note: Couldn't test receipts as I had problem on my simulator accessing the folders but I think this is fine as the issue is not platform dependent.

62124-android-hyrbid-001.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

62124-mweb-chrome-001.mp4

iOS: Native

Note: Couldn't test receipts as I had problem on my simulator accessing the folders but I think this is fine as the issue is not platform dependent.

62124-ios-hybrid-002.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

62124-mweb-safari-001.mp4

rojiphil

@MarioExpensify Changes LGTM and works well too.
All yours for review. Thanks.

MarioExpensify · 2025-05-29T19:11:38Z

Nice!! Changes looks good!

OSBotify · 2025-05-29T19:22:29Z

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

tgolen · 2025-05-29T20:40:09Z

+            transaction.comment = {comment: ''};
+        });
+
+        it.only('should add category specific violations', () => {


@FitseTLT Same thing happened here with it.only() 😁

Sorry, I'm missing the context here, what happened @tgolen?

We are merging the fix don't worry 👍

@MarioExpensify sorry, the context comes from another PR were it.only() was accidentally used also. Basically, when you use it.only(), then Jest will ONLY run that one test. It's great for debugging and developing locally, but it's also quite hazardous if it gets merged because it skips all the other tests in this file.

Thank you!! I wasn't aware of that, will keep an eye for other usages that may show up!

github-actions · 2025-06-02T19:55:49Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/MarioExpensify in version: 9.1.55-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-06-03T12:50:37Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/MarioExpensify in version: 9.1.56-2 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-06-03T20:03:02Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/MarioExpensify in version: 9.1.58-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-06-04T16:19:16Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.1.58-4 🚀

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

FitseTLT added 2 commits May 15, 2025 00:26

added missing violation onyx data

f587cfd

Merge branch 'main' into fix-add-missing-comment-violation-onyx-data

5790fa8

FitseTLT requested a review from a team as a code owner May 15, 2025 16:55

melvin-bot Bot requested review from rojiphil and removed request for a team May 15, 2025 16:55

added test

0d7303d

FitseTLT added 3 commits May 16, 2025 22:53

Merge branch 'main' into fix-add-missing-comment-violation-onyx-data

df919cf

Merge branch 'main' into fix-add-missing-comment-violation-onyx-data

b32d073

calculate violation data on receipt change

2517f12

Merge branch 'main' into fix-add-missing-comment-violation-onyx-data

0f6182d

FitseTLT added 2 commits May 27, 2025 17:54

Merge branch 'main' into fix-add-missing-comment-violation-onyx-data

cc85c2a

reset transaction receipt on detach receipt

deef8db

rojiphil approved these changes May 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from MarioExpensify May 29, 2025 13:08

Christinadobrzyn mentioned this pull request May 29, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-06-11] [$250] Calculate missingComment, overCategoryLimit, and receiptRequired (for category) violations on the client #61790

Closed

MarioExpensify approved these changes May 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

MarioExpensify merged commit 9ebfac0 into Expensify:main May 29, 2025
17 checks passed

tgolen reviewed May 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 2, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-06-02 #63263

Closed

rojiphil mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2025

fix: List still shows receipt when removed #44762

Merged

50 tasks

Conversation

FitseTLT commented May 15, 2025 • 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!

melvin-bot Bot commented May 15, 2025

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented May 16, 2025

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented May 22, 2025

Uh oh!

FitseTLT commented May 27, 2025

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented May 29, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MarioExpensify commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

tgolen May 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MarioExpensify May 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FitseTLT May 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tgolen May 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MarioExpensify May 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 2, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 3, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 3, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 4, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

FitseTLT commented May 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

MarioExpensify May 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading