[OldDot Rules Migration] Category Rules

[marcaaron]

Part of the OldDot Rules Migration project

Main issue: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/413886

Feature Description

![2024-08-07_14-40-16] (https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dba5b219-9d51-4935-909f-ce17e635bdb0)

High Level Section: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oLr14YhL6Y0N5g4tbozdIIrFbybBlsRA0H9I8Wm--w8/edit#bookmark=id.dk0p2mr4zxie

Detailed Section: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oLr14YhL6Y0N5g4tbozdIIrFbybBlsRA0H9I8Wm--w8/edit#bookmark=id.dk0p2mr4zxie

Manual Test Steps

TBD

Automated Tests

TBD

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @WojtekBoman

[WojtekBoman]

Hi! I'm going to work on this :)

[WojtekBoman]

@Expensify/design

I have one question about the Approver page.

I see we have a similar page in the workflows section and it looks like this:

Can the category and tag approver selection pages be implemented similarly this page?

I'm asking because I don't know if I should display the selected approver at the top of the page and the All section below.

[WojtekBoman]

@shawnborton @dannymcclain Could you take a look at it when you have some time? https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/47015#issuecomment-2309974690

[shawnborton]

Can the category and tag approver selection pages be implemented similarly this page?

I think the answer is yes, but only after there is an approver selected. Otherwise I assume we start off having no approver selected for those two things, and thus the list would not have anything at the top - it would just be a list of all available options.

Also, let's make sure we take a look at the updated flows for approvers as I think what you are showing is the "old" approval UI, right?

[dannymcclain]

I think the answer is yes, but only after there is an approver selected. Otherwise I assume we start off having no approver selected for those two things, and thus the list would not have anything at the top - it would just be a list of all available options.

Agree.

[WojtekBoman]

Also, let's make sure we take a look at the updated flows for approvers as I think what you are showing is the "old" approval UI, right?

Yes, when I was writing this question I didn't notice it had been updated :)

[WojtekBoman]

@marcaaron

I have a few questions about the category rules :)

1. On the Require receipts over page we should display policy?.maxExpenseAmount with policy?.outputCurrency for the default option, right? Is it appropriate to display $0 * Default if policy?.maxExpenseAmount is 0.
2. I'm wondering if we should use onyx optimistic data for updating the approver and default tax rate, because items that we store in policy?.rules?.expenseRules and policy?.rules?.approvalRules have own ids. Should I generate optimistic data manually on the frontend side without ids?

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Triggered auto assignment to @twisterdotcom (NewFeature), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/14418#:~:text=BugZero%20process%20steps%20for%20feature%20requests for more details. Please add this Feature request to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[marcaaron]

On the Require receipts over page we should display policy?.maxExpenseAmount with policy?.outputCurrency for the default option, right? Is it appropriate to display $0 * Default if policy?.maxExpenseAmount is 0.

Yes. If the policy default is actually 0 we should show $0 • Default. The default for a new policy will not be 0, but 10000000000 (so in that case we won't show 0 because there is practically "no limit"). I'm not sure if we want to show anything special for that case though. Probably fine to have it just say Default or maybe Unlimited • Default.

I'm wondering if we should use onyx optimistic data for updating the approver and default tax rate, because items that we store in policy?.rules?.expenseRules and policy?.rules?.approvalRules have own ids. Should I generate optimistic data manually on the frontend side without ids?

I can't think of a reason why we would need those to be generated in the frontend.

[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]]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @twisterdotcom, @marcaaron, @WojtekBoman, @dukenv0307 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!

[twisterdotcom]

How is this going? Is it done? This seems old.

[marcaaron]

This has been done for a while. But @dukenv0307 needs to be paid for the C+ role?

[dukenv0307]

@twisterdotcom I think we need to process payment. I reviewed this PR so long ago

[twisterdotcom]

Payment Summary:

• @dukenv0307 paid $250 via Upwork here (C+)

[dukenv0307]

Thank you @twisterdotcom I accepted the offer