[$250] BUG: Sage Intacct subsidiary is not shown on Connections card under Sage Intacct logo

[dylanexpensify]

Testing doc: here (request, will share)

Pre-testing steps

• Make sure the email address does not already have existing workspaces/policies
• Make sure emails sent to the testing email addresses go to an inbox you can access to validate your account(s)
• Create a new collect policy on OldDot and;
• Set the approval mode to “submit and approve”
• Enable scheduled submit with a frequency of Daily or “slower”
• Invite an additional user to the policy to play the member role in these testing flows
• Run the script stated here to enable workspace chat creation for a paid plan.

Pre-testing steps

• Make sure that your test account is on the intacctOnNewExpensify beta
• Make sure you have Sage Intacct web services user ID, password and Company ID to initiate a connection
• Make sure you create a new workspace/policy for each test run
• Make sure emails sent to the testing email addresses go to an inbox you can access to validate your account(s)

Steps:

1. Head to Workspace settings
2. Head to Accounting
3. Under Sage Intacct Connection click Connect
4. Enter valid credentials

Expected result: Once connected, the Sage Intacct subsidiary is shown on Connections card under Sage Intacct logo + Last synced message Actual result: The Sage Intacct subsidiary is not shown on Connections card under Sage Intacct logo + Last synced message

Screenshot:

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~015bae9383e2075bb8
• Upwork Job ID: 1815835932579772267
• Last Price Increase: 2024-07-23
• Automatic offers:
• paultsimura | Reviewer | 103311605

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @greg-schroeder

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Triggered auto assignment to @greg-schroeder (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.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~015bae9383e2075bb8

[melvin-bot[bot]]

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

[kabeer95]

Proposal

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

The problem we are trying to solve is that the Sage Intacct subsidiary is not shown on the Connections card under the Sage Intacct logo after connecting to Sage Intacct from the Workspace settings.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The root cause of this problem is likely due to an incorrect implementation of the Sage Intacct API or a misconfiguration of the connection settings, which prevents the subsidiary information from being retrieved and displayed on the Connections card.

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

To solve this problem, we need to review and adjust the Sage Intacct API implementation to ensure that it correctly retrieves and displays the subsidiary information on the Connections card. Specifically, we should verify that the Sage Intacct web services user ID, password, and Company ID are correct and properly configured, check the XML API calls to ensure that they are correctly formatted and include the necessary fields to retrieve the subsidiary information, and review the code that handles the connection to Sage Intacct and the display of the Connections card to ensure that it is correctly parsing and displaying the subsidiary information.

// Verify Sage Intacct credentials and connection settings
const sageIntacctCredentials = {
  userId: 'your_user_id',
  password: 'your_password',
  companyId: 'your_company_id'
};

// Set API endpoint and headers
const endpoint = 'https://api.intacct.com/ia/xml/xmlgw.aspx';
const headers = {
  'Content-Type': 'application/xml',
  'Authorization': `Basic ${sageIntacctCredentials.userId}:${sageIntacctCredentials.password}`
};

// Set XML payload to retrieve subsidiary information
const payload = `
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<request>
  <control>
    <senderid>${sageIntacctCredentials.companyId}</senderid>
    <password>${sageIntacctCredentials.password}</password>
    <controlid>string</controlid>
    <uniqueid>false</uniqueid>
    <dtdversion>3.0</dtdversion>
  </control>
  <operation>
    <authentication>${sageIntacctCredentials.companyId}</authentication>
    <get>
      <object>subsidiary</object>
    </get>
  </operation>
</request>
`;

// Send request to Sage Intacct API
const response = await fetch(endpoint, {
  method: 'POST',
  headers,
  body: payload
});

// Parse response to retrieve subsidiary information
const subsidiaryInfo = await response.xml();
if (subsidiaryInfo) {
  // Display subsidiary information on Connections card
  console.log('Subsidiary information:', subsidiaryInfo.text);
} else {
  console.error('Failed to retrieve subsidiary information');
}

[greg-schroeder]

Proposal review underway

[paultsimura]

@greg-schroeder not much to review here. Unfortunately, @kabeer95's proposal looks like a generic GPT-generated answer (they've been warned about such proposals in the past, but nothing really changed): generic self-repeating sentences with no App-specific code links, etc.

[greg-schroeder]

Word, thanks @paultsimura

[SzymczakJ]

Hello, I was implementing this feature, so you can assign me to this 😄. I though that having no entity chosen is a viable option and means "syncing at a top level" as mentioned in design doc. But now when I think of it, we don't give the user an option to come back to Top Level sync, so we surely need to address it. How should Entities work in Sage Intacct @yuwenmemon? When we connect to Intacct, should entity be chosen arbitrarily? How to show that user is syncing at a top level(I think that showing no entity chosen is a bac way to indicate this)?

[melvin-bot[bot]]

📣 @paultsimura 🎉 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

[yuwenmemon]

@SzymczakJ We show the option as "Top Level". I'll even share with you the JS from OldDot:

            // create entities selector
            let entities;
            let entitiesClass = '';
            if (!_.isEmpty(data.entities)) {
                entitiesClass = 'hasEntities';
                const entitiesOptions = _.map(data.entities, entity => ({value: entity.id, text: entity.name}));
                entitiesOptions.unshift({value: '', text: 'Top level'});
                entities = (
                    <div className="form xl-labels rowGaps">
                        <label htmlFor="intacct_entities">Top or entity level sync</label>
                        <React.c.FormElementSelect id="intacct_entities" options={entitiesOptions} defaultValue={config.entity} onChangeCallback={this.changeEntity} />
                    </div>
                );
            }

[yuwenmemon]

How to show that user is syncing at a top level(I think that showing no entity chosen is a bac way to indicate this)?

So based on the above, we should show an explicit "Top Level" option.

[yuwenmemon]

cc @ryanldonato

[SzymczakJ]

So basically we should translate missing entity field or entity set to "" to a Top level option, right?

[yuwenmemon]

Yep!

[paultsimura]

Hey @yuwenmemon – will this PR require C+ review? If so – could you please help me get access to the testing doc? I've requested but haven't gotten access yet.

[yuwenmemon]

Sorry @paultsimura it will not require C+ review, I'll unassign here.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

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

[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 9.0.17-2 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/46487

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-14. :confetti_ball:

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

• @SzymczakJ does not require payment (Contractor)

[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:

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

[tgolen]

I don't think we need to treat this as a regression. As pointed out above, this was just something missed during implementation.

[isagoico]

Related to this regression suite update - https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/414754#issuecomment-2278409936

@SzymczakJ I'm still able to reproduce that the Intacct Entity is not displayed on the latest staging build:

[SzymczakJ]

I've also stumbled upon such bug once, it comes from Sage Intacct connection object not being connected properly causing entity object to be empty. Did it fix after reconnecting/relogging @isagoico? I noticed sometimes connection action fails and we get such "not complete" objects in connections

[isagoico]

I'm not able to see the option even after disconnect > reconnect or refreshing the page.

[greg-schroeder]

There aren't any payments due here from my end. Should we close this is or the above discussion still unresolved?

[SzymczakJ]

@greg-schroeder let's keep this discussion for a moment. Cannot reproduce on my end but I've checked frond-end code and it seems like it might be related to BE.

it comes from Sage Intacct connection object not being connected properly causing entity object to be empty.

@NikkiWines @yuwenmemon are there any BE issues related to connecting to Sage intacct?

[SzymczakJ]

I'll OOO the whole next week but feel free to ask @war-in, as he has a lot of context.

[dylanexpensify]

@greg-schroeder let's get @war-in assigned here to keep it moving? @yuwenmemon @NikkiWines can you confirm @SzymczakJ's query here?

[yuwenmemon]

@NikkiWines @yuwenmemon are there any BE issues related to connecting to Sage intacct?

There could be a multitude of errors. However, I, too, am unable to reproduce it on my end. @isagoico would you be able to spin up an issue with reproduction steps?

And then I think we can close this issue out.

[yuwenmemon]

Oooooh wait I know what's happening. @isagoico You're using the QA account right? That one doesn't use subsidiaries/entities. You can confirm this by looking at the same connection in OldDot, there is no entity selector there either. So, this is working as expected:

[isagoico]

Ah! My apologies for this then 🫠 I think we can close this one out if it's a expected configuration on the QA account