Closed IuliiaHerets closed 3 days ago
Triggered auto assignment to @kadiealexander (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.
We think that this bug might be related to #wave-collect - Release 1
@kadiealexander 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
Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2024-08-20 20:40:06 UTC.
Taxes - Name field is no longer grayed out after editing tax code offline
Current pending field are not spread when updating the tax code. When updating tax code we create a key/value pair with the new tax code name so the pending fields are not merged in this case like it does when updating name or value, that's why we don't need to spread the pending fields when updating name or value.
Spread the pending fields. We should also check for other update actions for tax details edit.
EDIT: We don't need to do that when editing name or value.
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c75a04de-8dea-43d1-997b-9858f86ee627
Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2024-08-20 21:06:07 UTC.
Taxes - Name field is no longer grayed out after editing tax code offline
when updating the tax code it overrides the existing pending fields: https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/b2eb922823d491996faa5d50275bfce540e9b288/src/libs/actions/TaxRate.ts#L496C21-L525C27
we should add the existing pending field from the originalTaxRate.pendingFields
into the pending fields object... same applies to the success and the failure data
To do that we should change the pending fields property in the optimistic values to:
pendingFields: {...(originalTaxRate?.pendingFields ?? {}), code: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.UPDATE},
also, modify that in the success and failure objects
N.A
Added the code implementation
Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01da26942e57c47d6b
Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @c3024 (External
)
@Krishna2323 's first posted proposal comment shows the offending code block correctly in the RCA and the suggested solution is clear enough. I think we can proceed with his proposal because his is first.
🎀 👀 🎀 C+ Reviewed
Triggered auto assignment to @mountiny, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.
@mountiny, bump for assignment if you agree with @c3024's decision.
Go ahead please @Krishna2323
@c3024, PR ready for review ^
Automation failed here. This was deployed to production yesterday. Payment due on 7-Sep or 8-Sep.
cc: @kadiealexander
Updated
$250 to @Krishna2323 and to @c3024
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:
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] [@c3024] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: #43156
- [x] [@c3024] 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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/commit/bee9d44584a82ad6efa1b689f1aac65b9884b387#r146398000
- [x] [@c3024] 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: No discussion was started because this could not have identified earlier.
- [x] [@c3024] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Yes
- [x] [@c3024] 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.
Not overdue, offers sent!
Offer accepted.
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: v9.0.22-5 Reproducible in staging?: Y Reproducible in production?: Y If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: Exp https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/4874241 Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): applausetester+kh050806@applause.expensifail.com Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Action Performed:
Expected Result:
Name field will remain grayed out after editing tax code offline.
Actual Result:
Name field is no longer grayed out after editing tax code offline.
Workaround:
Unknown
Platforms:
Screenshots/Videos
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/096e04a3-79a3-46e9-9c65-a91e1e7cf762
View all open jobs on GitHub
Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit
Issue Owner
Current Issue Owner: @kadiealexander