Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix new individual invoice after one is paid as a business #54138

Merged
merged 23 commits into from
Dec 26, 2024

Conversation

neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini commented Dec 13, 2024

Explanation of Change

The main change is ReportUtils.getInvoiceChatByParticipants, which now must have a receiverType passed. That fixes the root cause of the linked issue, because now this function will only get a report with the proper receiver type. Previously, after one invoice was sent to and individual and then paid as a business, sending another invoice to the individual would incorrectly try to use the converted invoice chat, which caused a backend error. Now the function will not find an individual invoice chat, and correctly create a new one. I added a unit test in ReportUtilsTest using data from manual testing which is stored in tests/data/Invoice.ts. That data included some fields which were not part of the type definitions, so I added those and had to adjust types in a few other places.

Fixed Issues

$ #53019
$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/401789
PROPOSAL: #53019 (comment)

Tests

  1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
  2. Create a workspace if needed
  3. Go to More features, scroll down and enable Invoices
  4. Click green plus, Send invoice
  5. Send an invoice to User B
  6. As User B Go to invoice chat and pay the invoice as business
  7. [User A] Go to invoice report
  8. [User A] Click Add bank account
  9. [User A] In settings Add bank account
  10. Click on the bank account for invoicing and choose to make it the default
  11. Click the green plus, send a $2 to user B
  12. Open the invoice report and verify it loads successfully
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

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

I only tested on Mac Chrome because the changes are to one function that is platform independent.

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
2024-12-17_10-29-13.mp4
MacOS: Desktop

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini self-assigned this Dec 13, 2024
@neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi, this is ready for review now. The lint check is failing due to new rules about defaulting IDs, but I didn't add any of that. It already exists on main in some of the files I touched. I tried fixing it, but it creates a cascading effect of more and more files to fix and I don't want to get stuck in that rabbit hole.

Let's please get this issue fixed, then fix the lint check separately since that will be a huge PR.

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini marked this pull request as ready for review December 17, 2024 23:32
@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini requested a review from a team as a code owner December 17, 2024 23:32
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from allgandalf December 17, 2024 23:32
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 17, 2024

@allgandalf 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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team December 17, 2024 23:32
@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

Can you fix the failing ESLint test here please

@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

This has conflicts 😞

@neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can you fix the failing ESLint test here please

Please see this comment. I resolved the merge conflicts.

@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

allgandalf commented Dec 23, 2024

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
Screen.Recording.2024-12-25.at.8.45.12.PM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-12-25.at.8.48.45.PM.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-12-25.at.7.58.17.PM.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-12-25.at.7.59.50.PM.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-12-25.at.7.51.40.PM.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-12-25.at.7.55.27.PM.mov

lastActorAccountID: 32,
lastMessageHtml: 'paid $1.00',
lastMessageText: 'paid $1.00',
lastMessageTranslationKey: '',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
lastMessageTranslationKey: '',

Details for this change shared 1:1 on slack

Copy link
Contributor

@allgandalf allgandalf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM overall, only one comment I will complete the checklist either ways

Log.warn('getReceiverType called with no receiverParticipant');
return CONST.REPORT.INVOICE_RECEIVER_TYPE.INDIVIDUAL;
}
if ('type' in receiverParticipant && receiverParticipant.type) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess optional chaining was troubling here 😆

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes the type narrowing seems to be necessary because the receiverParticipant is a combination of two types.

@@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ type WhitelistedReport = OnyxCommon.OnyxValueWithOfflineFeedback<
};
// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/naming-convention
private_isArchived: unknown;
state: unknown;
welcomeMessage: unknown;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did we add these keys in the OpenApp call ?:

Screenshot 2024-12-24 at 10 37 43 PM

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this comment is strange. The whole thing is pretty confusing. It's just listing all the fields in the report and asserting that they're in the report type. I don't find any value in that because it's totally circular.

I found the related issue, and the goal there is to move client only keys out of the report type. So now I understand the purpose. It also doesn't really make sense to limit that to the OpenApp call, I think OpenReport is also a valid way to tell which keys come from the server. I checked the response and I see that welcomeMessage is returned but state is not, so I'll remove state.

Thanks for pointing this out.

@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

and we have conflicts...

@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

allgandalf commented Dec 25, 2024

Don't think those conflicts are any major thing, so i will continue with uploading the videos

Copy link
Contributor

@allgandalf allgandalf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Tests well, lets fix the conflicts and we can merge 🚀

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from puneetlath December 26, 2024 18:35
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 26, 2024

@puneetlath 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]

@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

Please ignore the failing es lint @puneetlath , have a look at this comment

@puneetlath puneetlath merged commit 116dbd4 into main Dec 26, 2024
17 of 18 checks passed
@puneetlath puneetlath deleted the neil-fix-getInvoiceChatByParticipants branch December 26, 2024 22:04
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 26, 2024

@puneetlath looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot added the Emergency label Dec 26, 2024
@puneetlath
Copy link
Contributor

Merged even though ESLint was failing based on this reasoning.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.0.80-1 🚀

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

@izarutskaya
Copy link

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants