fix: a 'new comment' when opening the one expense report for the first time #43531

nkdengineer · 2024-06-12T04:24:55Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #42472
PROPOSAL: #42472 (comment)

Tests

Submit a expense report with one expense as an employee
Sign in as a approver of the expense report (shouldn't be signed in before so that you don't have the expense report or transaction thread locally)
Throttle network connection to slow 3G, so that OpenReport takes a little bit to return
Click on the expense report to view the details
Verify that: Should not see a green New line like a comment

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Submit a expense report with one expense as an employee
Sign in as a approver of the expense report (shouldn't be signed in before so that you don't have the expense report or transaction thread locally)
Throttle network connection to slow 3G, so that OpenReport takes a little bit to return
Click on the expense report to view the details
Verify that: Should not see a green New line like a comment

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-mweb.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-mweb.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

…t time

melvin-bot · 2024-06-12T04:38:21Z

@mollfpr 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]

mollfpr · 2024-06-13T14:19:50Z

Still working on the testing on all platforms. Also, comparing to the staging where I can find the easiest step test case.

nkdengineer · 2024-06-18T03:08:31Z

@mollfpr any update here?

mollfpr · 2024-06-18T03:57:53Z

Still working on the testing, but I'll finish it EOD.

mollfpr · 2024-06-18T19:31:10Z

@nkdengineer I think we're missing the expected result here.

Currently, in staging, we have one money request preview at least when it's open offline as expected on the PR #36657.

Here's the result from this PR. There's no money request preview when it's only one expense.

The new comment mark is still appearing when more than one expense is submitted.

nkdengineer · 2024-06-19T14:11:24Z

Currently, in staging, we have one money request preview at least when it's open offline as expected on the PR #36657.

@mollfpr Can you share the full step for this bug, here is my result when I test in this PR.

Screen.Recording.2024-06-19.at.21.09.33.mov

The new comment mark is still appearing when more than one expense is submitted.

Please share the full steps to reproduce this bug, I also can't reproduce this.

mollfpr · 2024-06-19T17:56:45Z

@nkdengineer The step is same with the issue.

Submit a expense report with one expense as an employee

Sign in as a approver of the expense report (shouldn't be signed in before so that you don't have the expense report or transaction thread locally)

Throttle network connection to slow 3G, so that OpenReport takes a little bit to return

Click on the expense report to view the details

The easiest way to repro the issue is, to switch offline before opening the money request and make sure you haven't open the money request report before.

nkdengineer · 2024-06-20T04:31:00Z

The easiest way to repro the issue is, to switch offline before opening the money request and make sure you haven't open the money request report before.

@mollfpr

Here is the result when I test on the latest main (the result is the same on staging).

Screen.Recording.2024-06-20.at.11.25.28.mov

Here is the result when I test on this PR

Screen.Recording.2024-06-20.at.11.27.19.mov

mollfpr · 2024-06-20T04:36:21Z

@nkdengineer why the result on staging different with the issue?

Also, you should be sign-in as approver after the employee submit the expense, exactly the same with the video in the issue.

nkdengineer · 2024-06-20T04:39:00Z

Also, you should be sign-in as approver after the employee submit the expense, exactly the same with the video in the issue.

I signed-in as approver in the video.

nkdengineer · 2024-06-20T04:56:34Z

why the result on staging different with the issue?

@mollfpr It comes from BE. Now on staging when we login as approver, BE returns the created action of transaction thread report and only return the iou action of expense report. So if we open the iou report, the ReportActionsUtils.getCombinedReportActions will filter out the created action of transaction thread report and iou action of expense report and then the empty view appears.

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsView.tsx

Line 160 in 7561439

    
           () => ReportActionsUtils.getCombinedReportActions(allReportActions, transactionThreadReportActions),

With this PR, we will use allReportActions of expense report to get the reportActionsToDisplay and it will generate a created action in offline and then the combine report will appear as expected.

mollfpr · 2024-06-20T08:44:53Z

I see it now. The behavior seems to change on the staging and my latest test doesn't repro the issue I mention before. Thanks @nkdengineer

mollfpr · 2024-06-21T15:34:40Z

The test and changes look good to me! We just need to resolve the conflict and re-run the test.

Also, for the test step, I think we can update it too:

Pre-requisite, 2 accounts one of them is the employee and approver.

Sign in as an employee
Submit an expense request to the workspace
Sign in as the approver
Go offline
Open the employee report that request the expense
Click on the expense
Verify that it showing the detail transaction report

mollfpr · 2024-06-21T15:36:50Z

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

43531.Android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

43531.mWeb-Chrome.mp4

iOS: Native

43531.iOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

43531.mWeb-Safari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

43531.Web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

43531.Desktop.mp4

mollfpr

LGTM!

srikarparsi

Hey @nkdengineer, looks like there's conflicts now. Please ping me once you get to them and I can review

srikarparsi · 2024-06-26T20:44:46Z

Didn't mean to approve

nkdengineer · 2024-06-27T03:06:56Z

@srikarparsi I resolved the conflict. Please help to check again.

srikarparsi · 2024-06-27T03:38:23Z

Lint looks like it's failing now @nkdengineer

nkdengineer · 2024-06-27T03:50:59Z

@srikarparsi It's fixed now.

srikarparsi

looks good to me, thanks for the changes

OSBotify · 2024-06-27T05:32:50Z

✋ 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 · 2024-07-03T19:37:39Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.0.3-7 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-10T10:55:41Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.0.5-13 🚀

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

fix: a 'new comment' when opening the one expense report for the firs…

3a631cf

…t time

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2024 04:38

nkdengineer requested a review from a team as a code owner June 12, 2024 04:38

melvin-bot bot requested review from mollfpr and removed request for a team June 12, 2024 04:38

nkdengineer mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-10] [$250] "Expense" is showing as a "new comment" when opening the one expense report for the first time #42472

Closed

6 tasks

merge main

585d56a

nkdengineer added 2 commits June 19, 2024 10:53

Merge branch 'main' into fix/42472

b5c58f5

Merge branch 'main' into fix/42472

b0c7bea

Merge branch 'main' into fix/42472

26cf273

merge main

edd9502

mollfpr approved these changes Jun 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from srikarparsi June 26, 2024 18:55

srikarparsi previously approved these changes Jun 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

srikarparsi self-requested a review June 26, 2024 20:44

merge main

a72b000

nkdengineer dismissed srikarparsi’s stale review via a72b000 June 27, 2024 03:06

fix lint

66eb796

srikarparsi approved these changes Jun 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

srikarparsi merged commit 4ee43a3 into Expensify:main Jun 27, 2024
15 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-06-27 #44575

Closed

85 tasks

srikarparsi mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-22] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-17] [CRITICAL] [$250] Comment link - Navigating to a report action comment doesn't scroll the report page #44625

Closed

6 tasks

ishpaul777 mentioned this pull request Jul 2, 2024

Revert "fix: a 'new comment' when opening the one expense report for the first time" #44740

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: a 'new comment' when opening the one expense report for the first time #43531

fix: a 'new comment' when opening the one expense report for the first time #43531

nkdengineer commented Jun 12, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 12, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 13, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 18, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 18, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 18, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 19, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 19, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 20, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 20, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 20, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 20, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 20, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 21, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mollfpr left a comment

srikarparsi left a comment

srikarparsi commented Jun 26, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 27, 2024

srikarparsi commented Jun 27, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 27, 2024

srikarparsi left a comment •

edited

Loading

OSBotify commented Jun 27, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 3, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 10, 2024

fix: a 'new comment' when opening the one expense report for the first time #43531

fix: a 'new comment' when opening the one expense report for the first time #43531

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Jun 12, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 12, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 13, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 18, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 18, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 18, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 19, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 19, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 20, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 20, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 20, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 20, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 20, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 21, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 21, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

mollfpr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

srikarparsi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

srikarparsi commented Jun 26, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 27, 2024

srikarparsi commented Jun 27, 2024

nkdengineer commented Jun 27, 2024

srikarparsi left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Jun 27, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 3, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 10, 2024

mollfpr commented Jun 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

srikarparsi left a comment •

edited

Loading