[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [$250] Track distance - Incorrect distance is displayed on confirmation page when submitting to WS

[kavimuru]

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: 1.4.78-3 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 staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to self DM.
3. Track a distance expense.
4. Go to transaction thread of the distance expense.
5. Take note of the distance.
6. Return to the main chat.
7. Click Share it with my accountant (or categorize it) from actionable whisper.
8. Proceed to confirmation page.

Expected Result:

The distance in the confirmation page will be the same as the distance in the transaction thread because waypoints remain the same.

Actual Result:

The distance in the confirmation page is different. It shows a very short distance (0.01 km in my case).

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

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/43996225/b15a76ec-3d48-4b82-b508-1e12b60e6c00

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01cae0e715bb61699d
• Upwork Job ID: 1798854040827421683
• Last Price Increase: 2024-06-13
• Automatic offers:
• situchan | Reviewer | 102737223
• dominictb | Contributor | 102737226

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @lschurr

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Triggered auto assignment to @lschurr (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[kavimuru]

@lschurr FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors.

[kavimuru]

We think this bug might be related to #vip-vsb

[Tony-MK]

I tried reproducing on the current main branch, the distance is displayed correctly.

[kpadmanabhan]

Same here. Unable to reproduce in main.

[lschurr]

Going to close since we are unable to reproduce.

[lanitochka17]

Issue is still reproducible

https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/78819774/37a969de-1796-46f5-a9f3-588efa86562f

[lschurr]

@Tony-MK @kpadmanabhan - Can you try again?

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01cae0e715bb61699d

[melvin-bot[bot]]

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

[lschurr]

Would you mind testing and confirming this bug is still happening @situchan? A few others weren't able to reproduce.

[situchan]

testing...

[dominictb]

Proposal

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

The distance in the confirmation page is different. It shows a very short distance (0.01 km in my case).

What is the root cause of that problem?

The GetRouteDraft API returns the comment.customUnit.quantity value of meter unit and then we convert this to the current unit to display here.

But after we create the track distance, back-end returns comment.customUnit.quantity value of the current unit. It leads the distance displays the wrong value when we move the transaction from track expense

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

We should convert the distance to meter value here if we're moving the transaction from track expense by the same as we do here

const distance = isMovingTransactionFromTrackExpense && unit ? DistanceRequestUtils.convertToDistanceInMeters(TransactionUtils.getDistance(transaction), unit) : TransactionUtils.getDistance(transaction);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[Tony-MK]

I have tried to reproduce it on the main branch instead of staging but failed.

This is what I got.

[dominictb]

To reproduce this bug, we should enable P2P distance beta.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@lschurr, @situchan Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[situchan]

reviewing proposal

[melvin-bot[bot]]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[lschurr]

Any update on this one @situchan?

[situchan]

I reproduced. @dominictb thanks for the proposal. It makes sense but why can't we fix this inconsistency in backend? One is meter unit, another is current unit.

The GetRouteDraft API returns the comment.customUnit.quantity value of meter unit and then we convert this to the current unit to display here.

But after we create the track distance, back-end returns comment.customUnit.quantity value of the current unit. It leads the distance displays the wrong value when we move the transaction from track expense

[dominictb]

@situchan I think that's expected in back-end that stored the distance value of current unit after we create the distance request. We've been doing that since we got distance from the comment here.

[situchan]

@dominictb's proposal looks good to me. 🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot[bot]]

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

[melvin-bot[bot]]

📣 @situchan 🎉 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]]

📣 @dominictb 🎉 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 📖

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@thienlnam @lschurr @situchan @dominictb 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!

[dominictb]

PR will be ready by a day or two.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @thienlnam, @lschurr, @situchan, @dominictb eroding to Monthly issue.

P.S. Is everyone reading this sure this is really a near-term priority? Be brave: if you disagree, go ahead and close it out. If someone disagrees, they'll reopen it, and if they don't: one less thing to do!

[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 9.0.7-8 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/43819

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-24. :confetti_ball:

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

• @situchan requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @dominictb 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:

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