fix: fix validation for split bill #40868

koko57 · 2024-04-24T11:23:02Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #40756
$ #40749
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Merchant Error

Go to FAB > Split expense > Scan.
Create split scan expense with a few users.
In the group chat, click on the split preview.
Click Split expense.
Click Split expense again.
Verify that there will be no error under Merchant field because Merchant is not a requirement for non-workspace expense.

Amount Error

Go to FAB > Split expense > Scan.
Create a split scan expense with a workspace.
When the expense is scanning, click on the split preview.
Click Split expense.
Verify that an error will show up for the missing amount.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

n/a

QA Steps

Merchant Error

Go to FAB > Split expense > Scan.
Create split scan expense with a few users.
In the group chat, click on the split preview.
Click Split expense.
Click Split expense again.
Verify that there will be no error under Merchant field because Merchant is not a requirement for non-workspace expense.

Amount Error

Go to FAB > Split expense > Scan.
Create a split scan expense with a workspace.
When the expense is scanning, click on the split preview.
Click Split expense.
Verify that an error will show up for the missing amount.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

having problems with building the project on android now

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.30.18.mp4

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.30.41.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.36.25.mp4

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.36.45.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.39.31.mp4

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.40.27.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.25.40.mp4

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.27.24.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.13.34.20.mp4

melvin-bot · 2024-04-24T12:14:06Z

@Ollyws Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

mountiny · 2024-04-24T14:22:59Z

What is your ETA for the review here? @Ollyws

Ollyws · 2024-04-24T15:21:27Z

Will review now.

Ollyws · 2024-04-24T19:28:51Z

src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx

                setMerchantError(true);
-                return;


Without the early return the report will submit even with the merchant error:

Screen.Recording.2024-04-24.at.21.27.02.mov

Ollyws · 2024-04-24T22:11:22Z

src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx

@@ -322,19 +320,10 @@ function MoneyRequestConfirmationList({
    const isMerchantEmpty = !iouMerchant || iouMerchant === CONST.TRANSACTION.PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT;
    const isMerchantRequired = isPolicyExpenseChat && !isScanRequest && shouldShowMerchant;

-    const isCategoryRequired = canUseViolations && !!policy?.requiresCategory;
+    const shouldDisplayMerchantError =
+        (isMerchantRequired || (isEditingSplitBill && isScanRequest)) && (shouldDisplayFieldError || formError === 'iou.error.invalidMerchant') && isMerchantEmpty;


I'm a little confused about the (isEditingSplitBill && isScanRequest) condition here, I can't see any instance in which it is true due to isScanRequest always being false, but if isScanRequest was true we would be seeing the merchant error in places where the merchant isn't required.

Maybe I'm missing something but could you clarify this for me? Thanks.

@Ollyws ok, you're right - removing this from the condition

Thanks but now we are getting a field required error on a non-workspace split:

Screen.Recording.2024-04-25.at.15.39.13.mov

@Ollyws fixed

Ollyws · 2024-04-25T19:48:34Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android_Native_01.mov

Android_Native_02.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Android_Chrome_01.mov

Android_Chrome_02.mov

iOS: Native

iOS_Native_01.mov

iOS_Native_02.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

iOS_Safari_01.mov

iOS_Safari_02.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS_Chrome_01.mov

MacOS_Chrome_02.mov

MacOS: Desktop

MacOS_Desktop_01.mov

MacOS_Desktop_02.mov

Ollyws

LGTM.

robertjchen

Looks great, thanks!

OSBotify · 2024-04-26T04:48:06Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2024-04-26T23:21:50Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/robertjchen in version: 1.4.67-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

OSBotify · 2024-04-29T23:13:37Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 1.4.67-7 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

OSBotify · 2024-04-30T00:41:06Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 1.4.67-7 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

fix: fix validation for split bill

24aac4e

koko57 marked this pull request as ready for review April 24, 2024 12:13

koko57 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 24, 2024 12:14

melvin-bot bot requested review from Ollyws and removed request for a team April 24, 2024 12:14

mountiny assigned koko57 Apr 24, 2024

Ollyws reviewed Apr 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix: fix validation for submitting a split

47a0fc4

koko57 requested a review from Ollyws April 24, 2024 20:08

Ollyws reviewed Apr 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

koko57 added 2 commits April 25, 2024 12:46

fix: remove unnecessary condition

171c0d4

fix: remove unnecessary condition

96817be

Ollyws approved these changes Apr 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from robertjchen April 25, 2024 19:49

robertjchen approved these changes Apr 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

robertjchen merged commit 951c7b3 into Expensify:main Apr 26, 2024
16 of 17 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Apr 26, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-04-26 #41122

Closed

63 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: fix validation for split bill #40868

fix: fix validation for split bill #40868

koko57 commented Apr 24, 2024 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 24, 2024

mountiny commented Apr 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Ollyws commented Apr 24, 2024

Ollyws Apr 24, 2024

koko57 Apr 24, 2024

Ollyws Apr 24, 2024

koko57 Apr 25, 2024

Ollyws Apr 25, 2024

koko57 Apr 25, 2024

Ollyws commented Apr 25, 2024

Ollyws left a comment

robertjchen left a comment

OSBotify commented Apr 26, 2024

OSBotify commented Apr 26, 2024

OSBotify commented Apr 29, 2024

OSBotify commented Apr 30, 2024

fix: fix validation for split bill #40868

fix: fix validation for split bill #40868

Conversation

koko57 commented Apr 24, 2024 • edited by github-actions bot Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 24, 2024

mountiny commented Apr 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Ollyws commented Apr 24, 2024

Ollyws Apr 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

koko57 Apr 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Ollyws Apr 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

koko57 Apr 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Ollyws Apr 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

koko57 Apr 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Ollyws commented Apr 25, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Ollyws left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robertjchen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Apr 26, 2024

OSBotify commented Apr 26, 2024

OSBotify commented Apr 29, 2024

OSBotify commented Apr 30, 2024

koko57 commented Apr 24, 2024 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

mountiny commented Apr 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading