[HOLD for payment 2024-10-11] [$150] Expense - Combined report is more grayed out than the transaction thread

[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: 9.0.12-0 Reproducible in staging?: Y Reproducible in production?: Y If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to DM with user that has no unsettled expense
3. Go offline
4. Submit an expense
5. Click on the expense preview to go to expense report (combined report)
6. Take note of the grayness
7. Submit another expense
8. Click on the expense preview to go to transaction thread
9. Note the difference in report grayness between Step 6 and 8

Expected Result:

The grayness of the combined report and the transaction thread should be the same

Actual Result:

The combined report is more grayed out than the transaction thread

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

Add any screenshot/video evidence

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ff11dea1-2e7e-43ee-8433-adf0ea8e2b72

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~010079feefd518ffb7
• Upwork Job ID: 1821119086877872721
• Last Price Increase: 2024-09-23
• Automatic offers:
• dukenv0307 | Reviewer | 104088606
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 104088608

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @dylanexpensify

[dukenv0307]

@dubielzyk-expensify @shawnborton I mean when users edit receipt in offline mode (after creating request money in online mode), should we greyed out it?

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Yeah, I still think so cause the last action they've done haven't been uploaded online yet. We grey it out when it's "unsaved".

[shawnborton]

Yup, I agree with that.

[dukenv0307]

@MariaHCD Based on the above confirmation, we want to gray out the pending receipt when users edit it offline.

I decide to choose @nkdengineer's proposal

[Krishna2323]

@MariaHCD @dukenv0307, can you please check https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/46200#issuecomment-2298192827, I don't think that the proposal should be selected based on solution for a different issue. The selected proposal had 2 regressions which were identified and first solved by me. IMO that's totally a different issue from what is mentioned in the OP😕. I think we can open up a new issue for that, so we can have proper investigation and solution to avoid regressions.

[nkdengineer]

because the pending action is directly used for receipt. We don't use getPendingFieldAction in case of receipt because the receipt is only greyed out when IOU action is created offline.

You said that we don't use getPendingFieldAction because the receipt is only greyed out when IOU action is created offline. But as we confirmed above it's a wrong behavior and we should also fix this problem and then use getPendingFieldAction for consistency.

Additionally, it doesn't have a problem if replacing getPendingFieldAction with pendingAction for the receipt with my proposal even if we don't fix this issue

[Krishna2323]

It only became a valid issue after confirming it with the design team and that is not the issue we were originally trying to solve if we look at the OP. There was no reason for me to fix that as it is not realated to this issue in anyway. Even you added the solution for it after I found the regression. You can see https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/47189#issuecomment-2284654099, here I tried to solve an additional bug that was completed related to the issue but my proposal wasn't selected just because the issue wasn't mentioned in the OP.

And why would we use getPendingFieldAction if that's not needed as per the current behaviour. That issue should be fixed but that's a separate issue as it is not related to current issue and might lead to regressions if we don't have a proper solution and RCA for that.

I'll leave the final decision to @MariaHCD.

[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? 💸

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@MariaHCD, @dylanexpensify, @dukenv0307 Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[MariaHCD]

Was OOO - will catch up on this.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@MariaHCD, @dylanexpensify, @dukenv0307 Still overdue 6 days?! Let's take care of this!

[MariaHCD]

Focusing on other higher priority issues - will get to this asap

[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? 💸

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@MariaHCD, @dylanexpensify, @dukenv0307 Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[dylanexpensify]

Maria will get to this as soon as she can

[MariaHCD]

Still focusing on some other higher priority issues - will relook here later today

[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? 💸

[MariaHCD]

Still prioritizing other issues at the moment.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@MariaHCD, @dylanexpensify, @dukenv0307 Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[MariaHCD]

I've been out sick. Going to catch up here tomorrow and select a proposal to move forward with.

[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? 💸

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@MariaHCD, @dylanexpensify, @dukenv0307 Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[MariaHCD]

Okay, after reviewing the conversation here, I agree with @dukenv0307's chosen proposal. Let's go with @nkdengineer's proposal.

Considering we have to be a bit more careful with regressions here, I'm bumping the price to $150

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Upwork job price has been updated to $150

[melvin-bot[bot]]

📣 @dukenv0307 🎉 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]]

📣 @nkdengineer 🎉 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 📖

[dylanexpensify]

pending hitting prod the 7 day period

[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 9.0.44-12 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/49633

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-10-11. :confetti_ball:

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

• @dukenv0307 requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @nkdengineer 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:

• [ ] [@dukenv0307] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [ ] [@dukenv0307] 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:
• [ ] [@dukenv0307] 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:
• [ ] [@dukenv0307] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [ ] [@dukenv0307] 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.
• [ ] [@dylanexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[dylanexpensify]

Coming up!

[dylanexpensify]

Payment summary:

Contributor: @nkdengineer $150 Contributor+: @dukenv0307 $150

Please apply/request!

[dylanexpensify]

@nkdengineer @dukenv0307 please accept offers!

[dukenv0307]

BugZero Checklist:

• [x] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: N/A
• [x] 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: N/A
• [x] 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: N/A
• [x] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Yes
• [x] 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.

Regression test:

1. Go to DM with user that has no unsettled expense
2. Go offline
3. Submit an expense
4. Click on the expense preview to go to expense report (combined report)
5. Take note of the grayness
6. Submit another expense
7. Click on the expense preview to go to transaction thread
8. Verify that: The grayness of the combined report and the transaction thread should be the same

[dylanexpensify]

bump @dukenv0307 @nkdengineer on accepting contract

[dukenv0307]

@dylanexpensify Sorry I missed that, I accepted the contract

[dylanexpensify]

Done!