[TRACKING] Enable P2P distance requests #23291
Comments
|
Triggered auto assignment to @lschurr ( |
|
Triggered auto assignment to Design team member for new feature review - @shawnborton ( |
|
Still not a priority. |
|
I don't think this is critical, I would say it's more polish right? If it's critical for smallbizexpo, why? |
|
Definitely not critical. |
|
Still not a priority. |
|
I need to prioritize this one this week. |
|
Do we have an idea of what exactly needs to happen to the product to enable this? Is it:
|
|
The main change required is adding a |
|
OK, can you please update the title and the OP to reflect that? |
|
@neil-marcellini Hey man, wanna chat and see if I can give you a hand with some bugs in the next few days? I'm starting to wrap up the homepage, and may dedicate about 50% of my bandwidth to helping with bugs for our new features / 50% to leading the implementation of another feature (most likely Workspace Downgrades). |
|
That would be great yeah! It would be wonderful if you could pick up this internal issue [$250] [P2P Distance] Split - Incorrect amount & distance behavior when changing distance on confirm page offline |
|
Sounds great! I'll let you know if I have any questions 👍 |
|
I went through all app issues that mention "distance" and added Here are the currently existing issues. For each one I will evaluate whether it should block the launch with 🛑 for blocking or 🟢 . I've organized the blockers to the top of this list in rough order of priority
Issues under review
Yeesh ok that took a while. Let's focus on getting all that fixed first, then I can do a run through of all the manual testing steps. |
|
I merged the App PR for this so it should be fixed when that hits prod on Monday. The issue that was blocking it also happens on main, and I asked the contributor to report it, so there will probably be another issue to solve but I don't think it will need to be a blocker for this project. |
|
Backend and frontend PRs are under review for #46753. Next up I will work on the inconsistency issues. |
|
I'll work on this issue today. E[$250] Distance - Inconsistency in showing unit in preview and transaction thread after updating unit. On Tuesday I chatted with Vit about it and he reminded be about the originalMerchant, which should have the right format to extract and store the unit on the transaction. |
|
I haven't gotten any feedback on the plan for that issue yet, so I just tagged some folks in Slack. I'll check back in next week. I've been focused on some other weekly issues instead, but luckily the external stuff is still moving along. I'll try to squeeze in an update on this issue soon, since I don't think it needs to be blocked anymore #46844 |
neil-marcellini
changed the title
|
I'm still working to finish off [$250] Distance - Inconsistency in showing unit in preview and transaction thread after updating unit. It's going to take a few more PRs. The contributor is still fixing various bugs in the PR for this issue [$250][P2P Distance] Rate currency doesn't match expense currency It's moving along very slowly and surely. |
|
I'm going through all the issues here and preparing a post about what's left to do. |
|
Wow awesome, very few issues remaining! Issues remaining:
Reviewing
In deploy pipeline
|
|
Here's an update. Once those last two issues are deployed we should be able to remove the beta, assuming QA steps pass. I'm going to work on adding the QA steps and getting them run. I'll list any issues found in that process, which might require further fixes before release. Issues remaining:
Reviewing
In deploy pipeline
|
|
QA steps are updated from the doc and written out here. Unfortunately I uncovered several more bugs. In the future I'm going to start getting regression tests or automated tests added with each PR, because it's very annoying to have regressions. |
|
Update: QA is going to add the steps I listed and run them soon Issues remaining:
Deployed
|
|
Adding regression tests is really the main thing now! I believe all tests are passing now. Once we get those added and passed by QA I will add all users to the beta, then remove it! |
|
Woohoo, the QA steps have been added so I'm going to add everyone to the beta. I'll wait a week before removing the beta so that if things start breaking severely we can just remove everyone from the beta while we fix it. |
|
I drafted the project wrap up in google docs and I plan to send it out on Monday. I'm going to ask Vit for a quick review of it first. |
|
I sent the wrap up in reply to the original proposal email thread! It's all done! I'm so happy to move on 😂 👋 |
and others
DESIGN DOC ➡️
Proposal
Proposal: Add support for P2P distance requests
Problem: Expensify makes it easy to request money from a friend, split a dinner receipt with a group, or request reimbursement for a company expense. We are also building a seamless bottom up flow in wave 6 to upgrade P2P requests into a workspace requests. No matter the request type, everything is possible; except for distance requests, which can only be sent to workspaces. Not only does this create an inconsistent and confusing UX for requesting money, but the bottom up flow will also be limited to manual and scan requests. We will miss out on converting distance request users from free to paid plans, losing out on valuable revenue.
Solution: Add support for P2P distance requests whether you’re requesting from a friend, splitting expenses for a road trip, or introducing your boss to the power of Expensify for distance tracking.
Posted in #whatsnext here on 10/24/23
Long version
Hey everyone! I'm excited to move forward with this project after the #whatsnext post. Here is the expanded proposal.
Proposal: Enable P2P distance requests so that the bottom up flow works for all expense types.
Strategy:
If someone hears about Expensify (from chalk on a sidewalk or seeing the logo as a prestigious racing sponsor), our viral growth model can convert that curious onlooker into a paying customer. No matter the type of expense they want to create: a simple request, scanning a receipt, or tracking distance; the user can jump into the app and get started. Select the start and finish points, choose who you want to send it to, and be done. When the new user's boss gets the request they click the big green "Pay" button and can select "Business bank account". As described in the wave 6 basic bottom up flow, that kicks off an elegant process of creating a workspace, starting a free trial, setting up the bank account, and moving the request over to the workspace chat. Of course, the receiver may also be your carpool buddy that is a bit too comfortable with getting a ride to work everyday; or you might split the cost of your road trip with friends. The possibilities are endless with a super app, after all.
Problem:
Expensify makes it easy to request money from a friend, split a dinner receipt with a group, or request reimbursement for a company expense. We are also building a seamless bottom up flow in wave 6 to upgrade P2P requests into workspace requests. No matter the request type, everything is possible; except for distance requests, which can only be sent to workspaces. Not only does this create an inconsistent and confusing UX for requesting money, but the bottom up flow will also be limited to manual and scan requests. We will miss out on converting distance request users from free to paid plans, losing out on valuable revenue.
If a user hears about Expensify's distance tracking feature and wants to try it out they will jump into the app, click the green plus, request money, select distance, enter their waypoints and click next. So far they are dazzled by the ease of use and our fancy Mapbox animations. However, on the next page, they enter the email address of the person who owes reimbursement for their trip, and they see a little error message saying that distance requests can only be sent to a workspace. "Huh, that's weird. What am I supposed to do now?", they think. Confused, they close the app and never come back.
Solution:
Enable P2P distance requests whether you’re requesting from a friend, splitting expenses for a road trip, or introducing your boss to the power of Expensify for distance tracking.
First, allow individuals to be selected, as well as split with. The existing distance field can be separated into distance and rate fields on the confirmation screen; which is the last step before creating the request. The user can click “Rate” to input the rate amount and unit. It will be saved to the user's personal workspace, making it sticky for subsequent requests. An added benefit is that the user doesn't have to configure the rate separately in settings. For workspace requests the rate will also be displayed, but it will not be editable because it comes from the workspace settings and can only be changed by admins.
On the backend the basic operations and format stay the same. We will extend the existing P2P and split functionality to work with distance transactions. Distance requests already use the same underlying function as the rest of the expense types, so it's mostly a matter of setting up additional parameters. Along the way there will be close collaboration with the wave 6 bottom up flow team, to ensure that our designs mesh well out of the box. The test steps will focus on the upgrade flow for distance requests since that's the most important part of the solution.
Please keep an eye out in #wave5-free-submitters for a pre-design coming soon!
Best,
Neil
Emailed to [email protected] on 11/6/23 with the subject
Proposal: Enable P2P distance requests so that the bottom up flow works for all expense types.Tasks
#whatsnext16 up / 22 total = 72% approval
[email protected]and paste in the Proposal[email protected](continue the same email chain as before) with the link to your Design Doc[email protected]again with links to the doc and pre-design conversation in SlackDesignDocReviewlabel to get the High-level of proposed solution section reviewedDesignDocReviewlabel to this issue[email protected]one last time to let them know the Design Doc is moving into the implementation phase[email protected]once everything has been implemented and do a Project Wrap-Up retrospective that provides:Issue Owner
Current Issue Owner: @neil-marcelliniThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: