Prevent payment for open invoice reports

[rezkiy37]

Explanation of Change

The PR hides the Settlement button for the invoice report if the report is not submitted.

Fixed Issues

$ #54541
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

1. Go to FAB > Send invoice.
2. Send an invoice to anyone.
3. Go to OD, open the same invoice report, click Undo Send.
4. Add another expense to the same invoice report.
5. As invoice receiver, go to ND and open the invoice report.
6. Pay the grouped invoice (either pay as individual or as business).
7. Verify that the invoice receiver should be able to pay the grouped invoice.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests.

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

"Same as tests".

• 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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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 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 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.ts 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(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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@c3024 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]

[rezkiy37]

I am building Android and uploading screenshots very soon.

[c3024]

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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[c3024]

LGTM!

[cristipaval]

@Expensify/design could you please review this one? Here's some context:

When the user sends an invoice over NewDot, the invoice is instantly submitted and visible to the receiver. Being in the SUBMITTED state, it can be paid. But if the user clicks Undo Send on the invoice page in OldDot, the invoice report gets into the OPEN state, and the receiver can't technically pay it.
This PR hides the Settlement button in these cases. Do you think we should also tell something to the receiver why the report can't be paid? Do we have a similar UI state for the expense reports?

[shawnborton]

Oh interesting... so it sounds like the receiver can still see an open Invoice? I would think it would be unshared with them at that point and they wouldn't be able to see it? But perhaps I am not understanding correctly.

Also cc @puneetlath @trjExpensify @JmillsExpensify for a second opinion on this one too.

[cristipaval]

Oh interesting... so it sounds like the receiver can still see an open Invoice?

@shawnborton yes, for now. I opened a discussion here about it

[dannymcclain]

I would think it would be unshared with them at that point and they wouldn't be able to see it?

This is what I was thinking too. But if we're just going to hide the button, could we include a system message like "Bobby Name unsent this invoice" (or something better that communicates what happened)?

[rezkiy37]

I would think it would be unshared with them at that point and they wouldn't be able to see it?

This is what I was thinking too. But if we're just going to hide the button, could we include a system message like "Bobby Name unsent this invoice" (or something better that communicates what happened)?

@cristipaval, AFAIK it requires a change on the backend side. Should I tweak the frontend?

[rezkiy37]

I've synced it up.

[cristipaval]

I would think it would be unshared with them at that point and they wouldn't be able to see it?

This is what I was thinking too. But if we're just going to hide the button, could we include a system message like "Bobby Name unsent this invoice" (or something better that communicates what happened)?

@cristipaval, AFAIK it requires a change on the backend side. Should I tweak the frontend?

yes, this requires backend changes.

[rezkiy37]

@cristipaval, any updates?

[rezkiy37]

I've synced it up.

[cristipaval]

I don't think it makes sense to hold this one until we add the system message. Also, this is low priority in our roadmap so the backend changes won't happen soon.

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.0.93-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	cancelled 🔪
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	cancelled 🔪
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	cancelled 🔪
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	cancelled 🔪

[izarutskaya]

@rezkiy37 PR is failing with original issue #54541 on all platforms

https://platform.applause.com/services/links/v1/external/a03d8e906dd0179bf93a268ed08ef6a1865968234ca0f3856ff3ea7732e3718c

[rezkiy37]

@rezkiy37 PR is failing with original issue #54541 on all platforms

https://platform.applause.com/services/links/v1/external/a03d8e906dd0179bf93a268ed08ef6a1865968234ca0f3856ff3ea7732e3718c

@izarutskaya #54958 (review)

[Beamanator]

@rezkiy37 can you check ^? 🙏

[Beamanator]

As long as there's no bigger bug introduced, we can mark this PR off the deploy checklist 🙏

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.0.93-3 🚀

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

[rezkiy37]

@rezkiy37 can you check ^? 🙏

@Beamanator Yes, I can. It was addressed here #54958 (review). The actual result is expected for now:

Invoice receiver is unable to pay the grouped invoice. Error shows up.

@cristipaval will work on it later to manage the backend.

cc @izarutskaya

[cristipaval]

@Beamanator we chatted about this in #billpay. This is low-priority, and it actually patches a rare case, so we don't want to spend time on it. In order to make it work ideally for the user, we might hide the OPEN invoice reports from the payer in NewDot and also archive the invoice room if the invoice is the only activity in that room. But this requires some backend effort that we'll allocate when billpay gets prioritized again.