[HOLD for payment 2024-02-15] [$500] Request - Merchant and category rows disappear in the confirmation page after adding receipt

[izarutskaya]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: v1.4.17-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause-Internal Team
Slack conversation: @

Action Performed:

1. Go to workspace chat > + > Request money .
2. Go to Manual > Enter amount > Next.
3. Click 3-dot menu > Add receipt.
4. Add a receipt.

Expected Result:

Merchant and category rows will not disappear in the confirmation page,

Actual Result:

Merchant and category rows disappear in the confirmation page,

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6326130_1703591470533.bandicam_2023-12-26_16-27-18-104.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0179ee4404d0db5b5f
• Upwork Job ID: 1739641592076816384
• Last Price Increase: 2023-12-26

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0179ee4404d0db5b5f

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @JmillsExpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @getusha (External)

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @Beamanator (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[paultsimura]

This is a regression from #30721

[aimane-chnaif]

This is expected
Let's close
cc: @youssef-lr

[paultsimura]

@aimane-chnaif this is expected for the Scan requests since the values are auto-generated there.
A manual request with an attached receipt does not behave like a Scan, therefore it should be allowed to enter these fields there. Was this specific case discussed in the PR?

[aimane-chnaif]

@paultsimura did you see #30721 (comment)?

[paultsimura]

Yes, and this was the response from @youssef-lr:

SmartScan should take care of those fields and not the user

We don't initiate the SmartScan process for in this case, do we? I think there was a misunderstanding in that discussion, otherwise the SmartScan shouldn't have been mentioned. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[aimane-chnaif]

You're wrong. @youssef-lr shouldn't have missed "manual" word in "After adding receipt in manual request".
Btw, @youssef-lr and me will be handling this issue either it's "bug" or not.
Not open for proposals.

[youssef-lr]

Ah right, replaceReceipt already marks the state as OPEN. Sounds good then.

[paultsimura]

Thanks. The PR is ready for review: #35599

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.38-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: Hide smartScan fields for Scan requests only #35599

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-02-15. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @paultsimura requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)
• @getusha requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@getusha] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@getusha] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@getusha] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@getusha] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@getusha] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@JmillsExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @paultsimura paid $500 via Upwork (LINK)
• ROLE: @getusha paid $500 via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@JmillsExpensify)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1739641592076816384/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[JmillsExpensify]

Updated the payment summary above. There are no auto-contracts for this issue, so I'm creating those now.

[getusha]

[@getusha] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: #30721
[@getusha] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/30721/files#r1491344743
[@getusha] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion: N/a this is a special case that was missed by the PR author.
[@getusha] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Yes
[@getusha] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

Regression Test Proposal

1. Open any workspace chat > + > Request money
2. Select Manual > Enter any amount > Next
3. Click top right menu icon > Add receipt
4. Upload a receipt
5. Verify that fields such as date and merchant are present and remain unchanged from their state prior to uploading the receipt.
6. Add a value to merchant field > Request money
7. Verify the created request doesn't start the SmartScan process

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[JmillsExpensify]

Everyone paid out and the regression test has been added. Closing this one!