[HOLD for payment 2024-12-11] [$250] Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown #52386

IuliiaHerets · 2024-11-12T12:37:34Z

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: 9.0.60-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: Y
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

Pre:condition:

Create a room
Invite few members
Create a split expense

Steps:

Launch app
Tap fab - split expense via QAB
Enter an amount
Note instead "next" button split expense button displayed
Tap on split expense
Tap amount
Note instead "save" button split expense button displayed

Expected Result:

On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button, split expense button must not be shown.

Actual Result:

On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button, split expense button is shown.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6662094_1731384329996.Screenrecorder-2024-11-12-09-31-56-914.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021858387880530531401
Upwork Job ID: 1858387880530531401
Last Price Increase: 2024-11-25

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @adelekennedy

melvin-bot · 2024-11-12T12:37:43Z

Triggered auto assignment to @adelekennedy (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.

Krishna2323 · 2024-11-12T12:54:58Z

Proposal 

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

Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown

What is the root cause of that problem?

The manual group split can't be skipped but the button text is set to iou.splitExpense when iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT is true.

App/src/pages/iou/MoneyRequestAmountForm.tsx

Lines 234 to 246 in cd3f30f

    
           const buttonText: string = useMemo(() => { 
        
               if (skipConfirmation) { 
        
                   if (iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT) { 
        
                       return translate('iou.splitExpense'); 
        
                   } 
        
                   if (iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK) { 
        
                       return translate('iou.trackExpense'); 
        
                   } 
        
                   return translate('iou.submitExpense'); 
        
               } 
        
               return isEditing ? translate('common.save') : translate('common.next'); 
        
           }, [skipConfirmation, iouType, isEditing, translate]);

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

We should update this if block to (skipConfirmation && iouType !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT) and remove this part.
For consistency we will also check IOURequestStepAmount, IOURequestStepScan & IOURequestStepDistance.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can create shouldSkipConfirmation variable like we do in IOURequestStepDistance and use it instead of skipConfirmation directly.

We can also remove this check in IOURequestStepDistance .

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistance.tsx

Lines 158 to 170 in cd3f30f

    
           // For quick button actions, we'll skip the confirmation page unless the report is archived or this is a workspace 
        
           // request and the workspace requires a category or a tag 
        
           const shouldSkipConfirmation: boolean = useMemo(() => { 
        
               if (!skipConfirmation || !report?.reportID) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               return ( 
        
                   iouType !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT && 
        
                   !ReportUtils.isArchivedRoom(report, reportNameValuePairs) && 
        
                   !(ReportUtils.isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && ((policy?.requiresCategory ?? false) || (policy?.requiresTag ?? false))) 
        
               ); 
        
           }, [report, skipConfirmation, policy, reportNameValuePairs, iouType]);

Result

NJ-2020 · 2024-11-12T13:01:07Z

Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2024-11-19 08:52:22 UTC.

Proposal

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

Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown

What is the root cause of that problem?

We will only return the save or next button if the skipConfirmation is false

App/src/pages/iou/MoneyRequestAmountForm.tsx

Lines 234 to 244 in cd3f30f

    
           const buttonText: string = useMemo(() => { 
        
               if (skipConfirmation) { 
        
                   if (iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT) { 
        
                       return translate('iou.splitExpense'); 
        
                   } 
        
                   if (iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK) { 
        
                       return translate('iou.trackExpense'); 
        
                   } 
        
                   return translate('iou.submitExpense'); 
        
               } 
        
               return isEditing ? translate('common.save') : translate('common.next');

Since we split the expense from QAB, we pass skipConfirmation true here

App/src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarScreen/FloatingActionButtonAndPopover.tsx

Lines 271 to 274 in cd3f30f

    
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_MANUAL: 
        
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_SCAN: 
        
               selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, true), true); 
        
               return;

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 386 to 392 in cd3f30f

    
           function clearMoneyRequest(transactionID: string, skipConfirmation = false) { 
        
               Onyx.set(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.SKIP_CONFIRMATION}${transactionID}`, skipConfirmation); 
        
               Onyx.set(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_DRAFT}${transactionID}`, null); 
        
           } 
        
           function startMoneyRequest(iouType: ValueOf<typeof CONST.IOU.TYPE>, reportID: string, requestType?: IOURequestType, skipConfirmation = false) { 
        
               clearMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.OPTIMISTIC_TRANSACTION_ID, skipConfirmation);

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

We should pass skipConfirmation false

App/src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarScreen/FloatingActionButtonAndPopover.tsx

Lines 271 to 274 in cd3f30f

    
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_MANUAL: 
        
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_SCAN: 
        
               selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, true), true); 
        
               return;

We can also do the same approach for other request if needed

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can pass skipConfirmation false if it's manual/distance split

App/src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarScreen/FloatingActionButtonAndPopover.tsx

Lines 271 to 274 in cd3f30f

    
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_MANUAL: 
        
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_SCAN: 
        
               selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, true), true); 
        
               return;

case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_MANUAL:
case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_DISTANCE:
    selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, false), true);
    return;
case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_SCAN:
    selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, true), true);
    return;

bernhardoj · 2024-11-12T15:44:59Z

Proposal

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

When creating split expense from QAB, Split Expense is shown on the amount page Button instead of next/save.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we select split bill from QAB, we pass skipConfirmation as true.

App/src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarScreen/FloatingActionButtonAndPopover.tsx

Lines 271 to 273 in 058b3af

    
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_MANUAL: 
        
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_SCAN: 
        
               selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, true), true);

If it's true, then we show Split Expense as the text.

App/src/pages/iou/MoneyRequestAmountForm.tsx

Lines 234 to 245 in 058b3af

    
           const buttonText: string = useMemo(() => { 
        
               if (skipConfirmation) { 
        
                   if (iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT) { 
        
                       return translate('iou.splitExpense'); 
        
                   } 
        
                   if (iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.TRACK) { 
        
                       return translate('iou.trackExpense'); 
        
                   } 
        
                   return translate('iou.submitExpense'); 
        
               } 
        
               return isEditing ? translate('common.save') : translate('common.next'); 
        
           }, [skipConfirmation, iouType, isEditing, translate]);

However, pressing the button won't split the expense immediately and instead going to the confirm page. If we look at this comment, we only want to skip split if it's unconfigurable, and only scan is unconfigurable.

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepAmount.tsx

Lines 181 to 183 in 058b3af

    
           // Only skip confirmation when the split is not configurable, for now Smartscanned splits cannot be configured 
        
           if (iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT && transaction?.iouRequestType === CONST.IOU.REQUEST_TYPE.SCAN) { 
        
               playSound(SOUNDS.DONE);

This means that we shouldn't skip confirmation for the manual amount.

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

Since we only want to skip split scan expense, we can remove this code for split scan because it's inside the manual amount page.

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepAmount.tsx

Lines 180 to 201 in 058b3af

    
           if (shouldSkipConfirmation) { 
        
               // Only skip confirmation when the split is not configurable, for now Smartscanned splits cannot be configured 
        
               if (iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT && transaction?.iouRequestType === CONST.IOU.REQUEST_TYPE.SCAN) { 
        
                   playSound(SOUNDS.DONE); 
        
                   IOU.splitBill({ 
        
                       participants, 
        
                       currentUserLogin: currentUserPersonalDetails.login ?? '', 
        
                       currentUserAccountID: currentUserPersonalDetails.accountID, 
        
                       amount: backendAmount, 
        
                       comment: '', 
        
                       currency, 
        
                       merchant: CONST.TRANSACTION.PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT, 
        
                       tag: '', 
        
                       category: '', 
        
                       created: transaction?.created ?? '', 
        
                       billable: false, 
        
                       iouRequestType: CONST.IOU.REQUEST_TYPE.MANUAL, 
        
                       existingSplitChatReportID: report?.reportID, 
        
                   }); 
        
                   return; 
        
               }

And then update shouldSkipConfirmation to return false when it's split bill.

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepAmount.tsx

Lines 78 to 84 in 058b3af

    
           const shouldSkipConfirmation: boolean = useMemo(() => { 
        
               if (!skipConfirmation || !report?.reportID) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               return !(ReportUtils.isArchivedRoom(report, reportNameValuePairs) || ReportUtils.isPolicyExpenseChat(report)); 
        
           }, [report, skipConfirmation, reportNameValuePairs]);

const shouldSkipConfirmation: boolean = useMemo(() => {
    if (isSplitBill || !skipConfirmation || !report?.reportID) {
        return false;
    }

    return !(ReportUtils.isArchivedRoom(report, reportNameValuePairs) || ReportUtils.isPolicyExpenseChat(report));
}, [report, skipConfirmation, reportNameValuePairs]);

melvin-bot · 2024-11-18T05:52:54Z

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021858387880530531401

adelekennedy · 2024-11-18T05:53:00Z

external

melvin-bot · 2024-11-18T05:53:01Z

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

mollfpr · 2024-11-19T07:59:53Z

Thank you guys for the proposals!

The manual group split can't be skipped but the button text is set to iou.splitExpense when iouType === CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT is true.

@Krishna2323 The RCA should be clear in pointing out what's the start of the problem to the end. Here are some follow questions for your RCA.

Why the manual group can't be skipped?
Why the skipConfirmation value is true but the manual split can't be skipped?

For consistency we will also check IOURequestStepAmount, IOURequestStepScan & IOURequestStepDistance.

What check do we need to do?

We should update this if block to (skipConfirmation && iouType !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT) and remove this part.

Also, the solution is not related to the main problem where the skipConfirmation has unintended value. So instead of adding an unnecessary check, we just need to have the skipConfirmation value false in the first place.

@NJ-2020 Your solution works only for the case when the QAB split expense is pressed. Is not working if we navigate to split manual from QAB split receipt/scan.

Since we only want to skip split scan expense, we can remove this code for split scan because it's inside the manual amount page.

@bernhardoj What's the initial reason for having the split scan on the manual amount page? I'm okay to remove it as long we have confirmed that the logic won't be used.

mollfpr · 2024-11-19T08:05:53Z

The alternative solution from @Krishna2323 and solution from @bernhardoj pretty much have the same approach to solving the issue, but they are ignoring the fact that skipConfirmation is true for the QAB split manual expense and it's wrong. If we decide that the QAB split manual expense can't skip the confirmation page, then we should set it that way in the first place to give clarity.

NJ-2020 · 2024-11-19T08:50:07Z

Is not working if we navigate to split manual from QAB split receipt/scan.

@mollfpr What do you mean by that?, I think when we split manual from QAB receipt/scan, the amount menu is not displayed, because the receipt is not yet scanned

And also if I submit split scan expense, and then go to expense details > amount, the submit button showing the correct title which is Save

Alternatively we can do this

App/src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarScreen/FloatingActionButtonAndPopover.tsx

Lines 271 to 274 in cd3f30f

    
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_MANUAL: 
        
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_SCAN: 
        
               selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, true), true); 
        
               return;

case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_MANUAL:
case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_DISTANCE:
    selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, false), true);
    return;
case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_SCAN:
    selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, true), true);
    return; // we will skip the confirmation page if it's split scan

Proposal Updated

Add alternative solution

mollfpr · 2024-11-19T09:07:45Z

@NJ-2020 Let me know the result with your solution of this step case:

Go to group chat
Create a scan split expense
Click on the QAB split receipt
Press on the manual tab

Could you confirm if the text is shown next & save?

mollfpr · 2024-11-19T09:14:47Z

@NJ-2020 Here's there result I've got when trying your solution. The text still shows split expense.

Screen.Recording.2024-11-19.at.16.09.35.mp4

The reason why this happens is because when selecting QAB split receipt where it has the skipConfirmation true and it doesn't change when tab on the manual or distance expense.

bernhardoj · 2024-11-19T09:20:40Z

but they are ignoring the fact that skipConfirmation is true for the QAB split manual expense and it's wrong.

I mentioned it here that we pass skipConfirmation as true and it's not wrong. All QAB should pass it as true,

Including this distance QAB.

App/src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarScreen/FloatingActionButtonAndPopover.tsx

Lines 275 to 277 in 058b3af

    
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_DISTANCE: 
        
               selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, false), true); 
        
               return;

The skipConfirmation basically tells whether this action is a QAB or not.

shouldSkipConfirmation will be the one that decide whether it's skippable or not.

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepAmount.tsx

Lines 78 to 84 in 058b3af

    
           const shouldSkipConfirmation: boolean = useMemo(() => { 
        
               if (!skipConfirmation || !report?.reportID) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               return !(ReportUtils.isArchivedRoom(report, reportNameValuePairs) || ReportUtils.isPolicyExpenseChat(report)); 
        
           }, [report, skipConfirmation, reportNameValuePairs]);

mollfpr · 2024-11-19T09:24:00Z

@bernhardoj Yes you did mention it in the RCA, but in your solution, you leave it as is.

The skipConfirmation basically tells whether this action is a QAB or not.

Could you elaborate this? Is other button quick actions without skipConfirmation true is not a QAB?

bernhardoj · 2024-11-19T17:05:13Z

I'm saying every QAB should pass the skipConfirmation. Currently, only split expense QAB that passes it as false.

App/src/pages/home/sidebar/SidebarScreen/FloatingActionButtonAndPopover.tsx

Lines 271 to 273 in 445fc42

    
           case CONST.QUICK_ACTIONS.SPLIT_DISTANCE: 
        
               selectOption(() => IOU.startMoneyRequest(CONST.IOU.TYPE.SPLIT, quickActionReportID, undefined, false), true); 
        
               return;

Otherwise, this will happen which you mentioned in your comment.

The reason why this happens is because when selecting QAB split receipt where it has the skipConfirmation true and it doesn't change when tab on the manual or distance expense.

but in your solution, you leave it as is.

The skipConfirmation basically tells whether this action is a QAB or not.

shouldSkipConfirmation will be the one that decide whether it's skippable or not.

melvin-bot · 2024-11-25T16:00:16Z

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

melvin-bot · 2024-11-26T09:01:16Z

@mollfpr @adelekennedy 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!

mollfpr · 2024-11-26T13:16:07Z

I think we can move forward now. The proposal from @bernhardoj has more explanation on the RCA and I think it has the correct RCA. So the proposal looks good to me!

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed!

bernhardoj · 2024-11-27T07:37:22Z

PR is ready

cc: @mollfpr

melvin-bot · 2024-12-04T01:13:45Z

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

melvin-bot · 2024-12-04T01:13:49Z

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.70-9 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

Fix wrong button text when use QAB #53187

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-12-11. 🎊

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

@mollfpr requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
@bernhardoj requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

melvin-bot · 2024-12-04T01:13:50Z

@mollfpr @adelekennedy @mollfpr The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

melvin-bot · 2024-12-11T09:03:39Z

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

Reviewer: @mollfpr owed $250 via NewDot
Reviewer: @bernhardoj owed $250 via NewDot

BugZero Checklist (@adelekennedy)

I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1858387880530531401/hired)
I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
I have verified the payment summary above is correct

adelekennedy · 2024-12-12T22:40:06Z

adelekennedy · 2024-12-12T22:40:54Z

@mollfpr for the steps above!

adelekennedy · 2024-12-12T22:41:35Z

Contributor: @bernhardoj owed $250.00 via NewDot
Contributor+: @mollfpr owed $250.00 via NewDot

bernhardoj · 2024-12-13T04:15:17Z

Requested in ND.

JmillsExpensify · 2024-12-13T14:10:17Z

$250 approved for @bernhardoj

melvin-bot · 2024-12-16T09:17:01Z

@mollfpr, @stitesExpensify, @bernhardoj, @adelekennedy Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

mollfpr · 2024-12-16T10:07:23Z

adelekennedy · 2024-12-16T17:30:23Z

https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/453694

garrettmknight · 2024-12-21T14:11:48Z

$250 approved for @mollfpr

IuliiaHerets added Daily KSv2 Bug Something is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager. labels Nov 12, 2024

melvin-bot bot assigned adelekennedy Nov 12, 2024

melvin-bot bot added the Overdue label Nov 15, 2024

adelekennedy added the External Added to denote the issue can be worked on by a contributor label Nov 18, 2024

melvin-bot bot changed the title ~~Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown~~ [$250] Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown Nov 18, 2024

melvin-bot bot added the Help Wanted Apply this label when an issue is open to proposals by contributors label Nov 18, 2024

melvin-bot bot assigned mollfpr Nov 18, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Overdue label Nov 18, 2024

melvin-bot bot added Overdue labels Nov 25, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Overdue label Nov 26, 2024

melvin-bot bot added Reviewing Has a PR in review Weekly KSv2 and removed Daily KSv2 labels Nov 27, 2024

melvin-bot bot added Weekly KSv2 Awaiting Payment Auto-added when associated PR is deployed to production and removed Weekly KSv2 labels Dec 4, 2024

melvin-bot bot changed the title ~~[$250] Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown~~ [HOLD for payment 2024-12-11] [$250] Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown Dec 4, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Reviewing Has a PR in review label Dec 4, 2024

melvin-bot bot added Daily KSv2 and removed Weekly KSv2 labels Dec 10, 2024

melvin-bot bot added the Overdue label Dec 12, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Overdue label Dec 12, 2024

melvin-bot bot added the Overdue label Dec 16, 2024

mollfpr mentioned this issue Dec 16, 2024

[HOLD] Implement Uneven Splits #40386

Merged

59 tasks

adelekennedy closed this as completed Dec 16, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Overdue label Dec 16, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-12-11] [$250] Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown #52386

[HOLD for payment 2024-12-11] [$250] Expense - On creating split expense via QAB, instead of next&save button split expense shown #52386

Comments

IuliiaHerets commented Nov 12, 2024 • edited by melvin-bot bot Loading

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 12, 2024

Krishna2323 commented Nov 12, 2024

Proposal

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

What is the root cause of that problem?

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

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Result

NJ-2020 commented Nov 12, 2024 • edited by github-actions bot Loading

Proposal

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

What is the root cause of that problem?

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

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

bernhardoj commented Nov 12, 2024

Proposal

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

What is the root cause of that problem?

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

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 18, 2024

adelekennedy commented Nov 18, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 18, 2024

mollfpr commented Nov 19, 2024

mollfpr commented Nov 19, 2024

NJ-2020 commented Nov 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Proposal Updated

mollfpr commented Nov 19, 2024

mollfpr commented Nov 19, 2024

bernhardoj commented Nov 19, 2024

mollfpr commented Nov 19, 2024 • edited Loading

bernhardoj commented Nov 19, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 25, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 26, 2024

mollfpr commented Nov 26, 2024

bernhardoj commented Nov 27, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 4, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 4, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 4, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 11, 2024

Payment Summary

BugZero Checklist (@adelekennedy)

adelekennedy commented Dec 12, 2024

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

adelekennedy commented Dec 12, 2024

adelekennedy commented Dec 12, 2024 • edited Loading

bernhardoj commented Dec 13, 2024

JmillsExpensify commented Dec 13, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 16, 2024

mollfpr commented Dec 16, 2024 • edited by adelekennedy Loading

BugZero Checklist:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

adelekennedy commented Dec 16, 2024

garrettmknight commented Dec 21, 2024

IuliiaHerets commented Nov 12, 2024 •

edited by melvin-bot bot

Loading

Proposal 

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

NJ-2020 commented Nov 12, 2024 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

NJ-2020 commented Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mollfpr commented Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

adelekennedy commented Dec 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mollfpr commented Dec 16, 2024 •

edited by adelekennedy

Loading