[HOLD for payment 2023-12-07] [$500] IOU - Inconsistency in Scan split bill IOU preview for creator&Participant

[kbecciv]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.3.94.0 Reproducible in staging?: y Reproducible in production?: y 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 https://staging.new.expensify.com/
2. Tap fab-Request Money
3. Tap Scan
4. Upload a picture by taking photo
5. Split with any 2 users
6. Tap add to Split
7. Tap split
8. Tap scan request created
9. Enter amount, description and merchant field
10. Tap split Note: The description in OIU is displayed
11. Log in with any user with whom you've split the bill
12. Open IOU Note: The Merchant in OIU is displayed

Expected Result:

There should not be inconsistency in IOU preview displayed for scan request creator and participant.

Actual Result:

For user who made scan request and split bill with 2 users, description details entered is shown in IOU preview. But for participant of split bill, merchant details entered is shown in IOU preview. There is inconsistency in IOU preview displayed for scan request creator and participant.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• [x] Android: Native
• [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
• [x] iOS: Native
• [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
• [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• [x] MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/93399543/19a2f4e6-9cd6-4a1b-806b-099a54c05b5a 

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01890520fc54e620e1
• Upwork Job ID: 1719686303480401920
• Last Price Increase: 2023-11-01
• Automatic offers:
• cubuspl42 | Reviewer | 27750967
• dukenv0307 | Contributor | 27750969

[melvin-bot[bot]]

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

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01890520fc54e620e1

[melvin-bot[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[bot]]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @cubuspl42 (External)

[dukenv0307]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Split bill preview display description while IOU Preview display merchant

What is the root cause of that problem?

We only show merchant if the request preview is not split bill

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/c8e7ee5718730aef7eaeec052ee5c97e4284ff53/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview.js#L172-L175

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

I think we should also show merchant for split bill by removing the condition !props.isBillSplit and and change the marigin style of merchant text if it's split bill

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/c8e7ee5718730aef7eaeec052ee5c97e4284ff53/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview.js#L173

Or Update the condition here to

{shouldShowDescription || (shouldShowMerchant && props.isBillSplit) && <Text style={[styles.colorMuted]}>{description || requestMerchant}</Text>}

And here to

shouldShowMerchant && !props.isBillSplit

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/c8e7ee5718730aef7eaeec052ee5c97e4284ff53/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview.js#L318

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/c8e7ee5718730aef7eaeec052ee5c97e4284ff53/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview.js#L328

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can prioritize description over merchant

[miljakljajic]

@cubuspl42 any thoughts on the above proposal?

[cubuspl42]

@dukenv0307 I will not review any of your proposals as long as the "Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue" section is a copy-pasted issue name.

[dukenv0307]

@cubuspl42 Thanks for your review, will improve this in the further. I updated.

[cubuspl42]

@kbecciv I re-watched the provided video multiple times and still cannot understand the issue's essence. Maybe it has something to do with the second attachment not loading correctly.

@dukenv0307 While your new updated issue re-statement is now acceptable in the formal sense, it didn't help me understand the actual problem here.

[dukenv0307]

Seem like the image in the screenshot of this issue is unavailable now. The problem here is when we create a split bill with description and merchant. The Split bill preview displays description field while the iou preview in iou report of each participant displays merchant field. That is the current bug which this issue mentioned.

[cubuspl42]

@kbecciv Would you re-record the videos?

Two reasons:

• One of them is not available
• It's suggested that there is an issue with reproducibility

[kbecciv]

@cubuspl42 I apologize for any inconvenience. I've reviewed the issue again, corrected the reproduction steps, and added a new video and screenshot. Please let me know if the reported issue is still difficult to understand, and I'll be happy to assist further.

[cubuspl42]

@kbecciv Thank you! <3

[cubuspl42]

The proposal by @dukenv0307 makes sense. I personally would prefer the "alternative solution", i.e. preferring the description over the merchant. In my opinion, the description is the most personal element of the form filled by the user and is the one that deserves to be presented with the highest priority.

C+ reviewed 🎀 👀 🎀

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Triggered auto assignment to @nkuoch, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[cubuspl42]

@nkuoch Would you share your opinion about which field should be consistently presented in the Split/IOU preview: should it be the "merchant" or "description"?

[nkuoch]

cc @vitHoracek as you originally did https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/26603/files#diff-d8e6b69ad4461bebf91e940a67ddc07adf36a3f7c156d6066363c3bde06a0f8aR162

[nkuoch]

friendly bump @vitHoracek

[dukenv0307]

@mountiny Friendly bump.

[miljakljajic]

heads up @nkuoch that Vit's handle is @mountiny not @vitHoracek - shared a link to this issue in e chat to him

[mountiny]

I personally think this should be consistent so Merchant whenever available and fallback to description anytime Merchant is not defined. however with Scanned receipt, there will be merchant most of the time.

[trjExpensify]

I personally think this should be consistent so Merchant whenever available and fallback to description anytime Merchant is not defined

Yes, that's the logic for the preview. Merchant. If no merchant, then description. If no merchant or description, then blank. 👍

[dukenv0307]

I personally think this should be consistent so Merchant whenever available and fallback to description anytime Merchant is not defined. however with Scanned receipt, there will be merchant most of the time.

@mountiny My main proposal already had this expected.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@nkuoch @cubuspl42 @miljakljajic this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[miljakljajic]

@cubuspl42 - with the above in mind, do you have a preference amongst the proposals?

[cubuspl42]

@cubuspl42 - with the above in mind, do you have a preference amongst the proposals?

There is one proposal and I approved it.

@nkuoch @mountiny

Thanks for the clarification of the requirements! Are we in agreement that this is the expected order...

Merchant. If no merchant, then description. If no merchant or description, then blank.

...and the code should be adjusted so it's consistent for all previews?

[mountiny]

Yes!

[cubuspl42]

@nkuoch In such a case, I think we're ready to assign @dukenv0307 and start working on a PR 🙂

[melvin-bot[bot]]

📣 @cubuspl42 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link Upwork job

[melvin-bot[bot]]

📣 @dukenv0307 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link Upwork job Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻 Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[aimane-chnaif]

Let's hold this for #30721 cc: @youssef-lr

[dukenv0307]

@cubuspl42 The PR is ready for review.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

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

[melvin-bot[bot]]

The solution for this issue has been :rocket: deployed to production :rocket: in version 1.4.5-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period :calendar:. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/31604

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-12-07. :confetti_ball:

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• [ ] External issue reporter
• [ ] Contributor that fixed the issue
• [ ] Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

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

• @cubuspl42 requires payment offer (Reviewer)
• @dukenv0307 requires payment offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot[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:

• [ ] [@cubuspl42] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [ ] [@cubuspl42] 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:
• [ ] [@cubuspl42] 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:
• [ ] [@cubuspl42] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [ ] [@cubuspl42] 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.
• [ ] [@miljakljajic] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[miljakljajic]

Both contracts paid and ended. Thank you for your work!

[pecanoro]

@miljakljajic Did we reduce the pay? Since it caused a deploy blocker and PR had to be reverted.

[miljakljajic]

Ah, I had no idea we needed to reduce the pay. I'll request a partial refund from @dukenv0307 and @cubuspl42

[cubuspl42]

@miljakljajic Is it possible on Upwork?