[HOLD for payment 2024-03-14] [$500] [MEDIUM] Expense Report - In an offline created expense report, a negative request amount is displayed in the Header and Title

[lanitochka17]

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: 1.4.39-0 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:

Issue found when executing PR https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/35913

Action Performed:

Preconditions: Set up an OldDot administrator account, invite the employee to the policy https://sites.google.com/applausemail.com/applause-expensifyproject/wiki-guides/newdot-categories?authuser=0

1. Open https://staging.new.expensify.com/
2. Log in with the account of the employee added to the policy
3. Navigate to the group policy chat room
4. Turn off the internet
5. Create a manual request and send it to the WS room
6. Go to Report Conversation

Expected Result:

IOU created offline should not display a negative amount in the header and title

Actual Result:

In an offline created IOU, a negative request amount is displayed in the Header and Title

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

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

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/78819774/2ae68ee6-1f65-44c1-9ead-fb20579a7f9b

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~013de0165fd934bba3
• Upwork Job ID: 1755994535213568000
• Last Price Increase: 2024-02-09
• Automatic offers:
• paultsimura | Contributor | 0

[trjExpensify]

Nice! Good one that, guys!

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@mananjadhav @paultsimura @mallenexpensify @thienlnam 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!

[paultsimura]

Working on the PR at the moment.

[paultsimura]

Thanks. The PR is ready for review: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/37160

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@mananjadhav, @paultsimura, @mallenexpensify, @thienlnam Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[mallenexpensify]

@mananjadhav commented here I invited him to the beta, he should be able to review soon (was out sick for a few days)

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@mananjadhav @paultsimura @mallenexpensify @thienlnam this issue is now 3 weeks old. There is one more week left before this issue breaks WAQ and will need to go internal. What needs to happen to get a PR in review this week? Please create a thread in #expensify-open-source to discuss. Thanks!

[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 1.4.48-0 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/37617

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-03-14. :confetti_ball:

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

• @mananjadhav requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @paultsimura requires payment automatic 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:

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

[mallenexpensify]

@mananjadhav plz fill out the BZ checklist from above, thx

[mananjadhav]

While we added the storedTotal logic in this commit, I wouldn't count this as an offending PR as I am not sure when the ReportFields was enabled.

Nevertheless, I think it. makes sense to add a regression test for this one. I think the Test steps from the PR are good. I am not sure how do we mention the preconditions here @mallenexpensify.

@mallenexpensify Can you please add the payout summary so that I can raise the request?

[mallenexpensify]

Contributor: @paultsimura paid $500 via Upwork Contributor+: @mananjadhav due $500 via NewDot.

Thanks @mananjadhav , I just copy/pasted the preconditions from the PR, along with the steps.

• https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/379532

[JmillsExpensify]

$500 approved for @mananjadhav based on summary above.