correct logic of `from` and `to` for narrow layout in `Shared` in `Search` #44658

c3024 · 2024-06-29T05:51:56Z

Details

In the narrow layout, the expense header may display incorrect from and to values if the first transaction's from and to differ from those in the net report. This PR addresses this issue.

Fixed Issues

$ #44093
PROPOSAL: #44093 (comment)

Tests

[User A] Submit an expense for amount 'X' (say 10 units) to User B.
[User A | User B] Go to Search > Shared.
[User A | User B] Verify that the narrow layout shows User A --> User B in the header for this report.
[User B] Submit an expense for amount 'Y' which is greater than 'X' (say 20 units) to User A.
[User B | User A] Go to Search > Shared.
[User B | User A] Verify that the narrow layout shows User B --> User A in the header for this report.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

NA

QA Steps

Same as Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

narrowAndroid.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

narrowAndroidmWeb.mp4

iOS: Native

narrowiOS.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

narrowiOSmWeb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

narrowChrome.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

narrowDesktop.mp4

melvin-bot · 2024-06-29T05:52:01Z

@brunovjk 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]

c3024 · 2024-06-29T06:13:32Z

Initially, the reportItem sent from the backend has the same managerID and accountID. After some time, the correct reportItem values are sent. As a result, the from and to in the narrow layout appear identical for a period.

reportItemSameIDs.mp4

cc: @luacmartins

brunovjk · 2024-07-01T13:40:50Z

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

44658_Android_mWeb.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

44658_Android_mWeb.mp4

iOS: Native

44658_iOS_native.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

44658_iOS_mWeb.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-07-03.at.11.56.16.mov

MacOS: Desktop

44658_Desktop.mov

luacmartins · 2024-07-01T16:19:16Z

src/components/SelectionList/Search/ReportListItem.tsx

+    // We get the from and to details from the first transaction. The first transaction's from and to need not be the same
+    // as the report's accountID and managerID.
+
+    const participantFrom = reportItem.transactions[0].from?.accountID === reportItem?.accountID ? reportItem.transactions[0].from : reportItem.transactions[0].to;
+    const participantTo = reportItem.transactions[0].to?.accountID === reportItem?.managerID ? reportItem.transactions[0].to : reportItem.transactions[0].from;


I'm confused about why we have this check. Shouldn't we just use the reportItem from/to?

reportItem only has account IDs. We need display name, avatar etc. which are available in from and to fields of transactions.

Hmm can we update the reportItem to pass the personalDetails as well, like we do for transactions? I think that'd be cleaner and less confusing

Yes. That will make the code on front-end cleaner.

Cool, let's update it then!

luacmartins · 2024-07-01T18:55:39Z

Yea, I'm ooo today but I'll work on a fix tomorrow when I'm back

brunovjk · 2024-07-01T18:57:30Z

Yea, I'm ooo today but I'll work on a fix tomorrow when I'm back

Thanks. Sorry, I accidentally deleted the previous comment.

luacmartins · 2024-07-02T17:14:06Z

Initially, the reportItem sent from the backend has the same managerID and accountID. After some time, the correct reportItem values are sent. As a result, the from and to in the narrow layout appear identical for a period.

I haven't been able to reproduce this. @c3024 @brunovjk could you please list out the reproducible steps?

brunovjk · 2024-07-02T18:01:51Z

I followed the same steps to test this PR, but I did not reproduce the error consistently. My mWeb are laggy, it's easy to briefly see narrow layout appear identical for a period at the end of the videos:

|

@luacmartins

luacmartins · 2024-07-02T18:19:37Z

I'm still not able to reproduce. The UI updates correctly for me once we receive the Search response

Screen.Recording.2024-07-02.at.12.17.28.PM.mov

luacmartins

Bump on this comment @c3024

…t-transaction

brunovjk · 2024-07-03T13:55:10Z

Re-testing

c3024 · 2024-07-03T16:19:12Z

Bump on this comment

Done! I am seeing this almost every time. Repro steps are same as mentioned in the PR author checklist.

brunovjk · 2024-07-03T16:26:46Z

Bump on this comment

Done! I am seeing this almost every time. Repro steps are same as mentioned in the PR author checklist.

Exactly, the changes in the code are good for me, but I can also reproduce the issue al well. @c3024 do you think we can fix this in FE? Or just BE?

brunovjk

The latest changes LGTM, I will approve it but this issue still appears in my tests. If necessary, I will review it again.

c3024 · 2024-07-03T16:45:35Z

Just checked. Backend sends response correctly. It is not merged correctly into Onyx.

backendCorrect.mp4

luacmartins · 2024-07-03T22:02:48Z

Oh interesting, any ideas why the merge is not happening correctly?

luacmartins · 2024-07-03T23:31:33Z

I think we can merge this PR since the issue is not related to these changes. @c3024 could you still investigate the issue with the Onyx merge please?

c3024 · 2024-07-04T07:00:45Z

I think we can merge this PR since the issue is not related to these changes. @c3024 could you still investigate the issue with the Onyx merge please?

I have been trying but could not pin point on anything. There is a similar problem here in a Slack convo as well.

luacmartins · 2024-07-04T14:41:56Z

Does that happen only when you already had bad data locally and we're updating the values? Or does it happen when you have no data (fresh login) and we merge values into Onyx for the first time?

c3024 · 2024-07-04T14:47:34Z

Does that happen only when you already had bad data locally and we're updating the values? Or does it happen when you have no data (fresh login) and we merge values into Onyx for the first time?

When I login afresh the IDs are fine and up to date. But when there is a new transaction which causes swap of IDs of a reportItem, this happens.

luacmartins · 2024-07-04T16:23:10Z

Hmm I wonder if it's just taking time to write the data to Onyx and re-render the component then. I didn't observer this issue on my end.

OSBotify · 2024-07-08T09:57:55Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.0.5-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-08T10:54:18Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.0.5-2 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-10T11:04:53Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.0.5-13 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-07-15T20:23:17Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.0.6-8 🚀

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

rayane-d · 2024-08-19T09:44:41Z

src/libs/SearchUtils.ts

            } else {
-                reportIDToTransactions[reportKey] = {transactions: [transaction]};
+                reportIDToTransactions[reportKey].transactions = [transaction];
            }


This caused App crash when BE sends a transaction with missing report (reportIDToTransactions[reportKey] can be undefined). Issue: #46516 PR: #46867

get from,to from txn based on accountIDs in report

2d0909a

c3024 requested a review from a team as a code owner June 29, 2024 05:51

melvin-bot bot requested review from brunovjk and removed request for a team June 29, 2024 05:51

luacmartins reviewed Jul 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

luacmartins self-requested a review July 2, 2024 18:25

luacmartins requested changes Jul 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

add from and to to reportIDToTransaction

68c6031

c3024 changed the title ~~get from and to from transaction after comparing account IDs in report~~ correct logic of from and to for narrow layout in Shared in Search Jul 3, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into get-correct-from-and-to-for-report-from-firs…

ad2e78a

…t-transaction

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

brunovjk approved these changes Jul 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from luacmartins July 3, 2024 16:32

luacmartins approved these changes Jul 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

luacmartins merged commit d30a4bc into Expensify:main Jul 3, 2024
16 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-22] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-17] Investigate workflow job failing on main: typecheck / typecheck #44789

Closed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-22] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-17] Investigate workflow job failing on main: confirmPassingBuild #44790

Closed

francoisl mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2024

Remove dupe attributes in type SearchReport #44791

Merged

50 tasks

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-07-08 #44947

Closed

86 tasks

luacmartins mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] Search - Grouped expenses show User submits to User instead of to Workspace #45013

Closed

6 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jul 10, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [$250] [Search v1] Search shows User A submits to User B when User B submits to User A in the same report #44093

Closed

6 tasks

rayane-d reviewed Aug 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

rayane-d mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-19] [Search v1] Scrolling through old historical expenses in "Shared" crashes the app #46516

Closed

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

correct logic of `from` and `to` for narrow layout in `Shared` in `Search` #44658

correct logic of `from` and `to` for narrow layout in `Shared` in `Search` #44658

c3024 commented Jun 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 29, 2024

c3024 commented Jun 29, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

luacmartins Jul 1, 2024

c3024 Jul 1, 2024

luacmartins Jul 1, 2024

c3024 Jul 1, 2024

luacmartins Jul 1, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 1, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 1, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 2, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

luacmartins commented Jul 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

luacmartins left a comment

brunovjk commented Jul 3, 2024

c3024 commented Jul 3, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 3, 2024

This comment was marked as outdated.

brunovjk left a comment

c3024 commented Jul 3, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 3, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 3, 2024

c3024 commented Jul 4, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 4, 2024

c3024 commented Jul 4, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 4, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 8, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 8, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 10, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

rayane-d Aug 19, 2024

correct logic of from and to for narrow layout in Shared in Search #44658

correct logic of from and to for narrow layout in Shared in Search #44658

Conversation

c3024 commented Jun 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 29, 2024

c3024 commented Jun 29, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 1, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

luacmartins Jul 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

c3024 Jul 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luacmartins Jul 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

c3024 Jul 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luacmartins Jul 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luacmartins commented Jul 1, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 1, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 2, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 2, 2024 • edited Loading

luacmartins commented Jul 2, 2024 • edited Loading

luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

brunovjk commented Jul 3, 2024

c3024 commented Jul 3, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 3, 2024

This comment was marked as outdated.

brunovjk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

c3024 commented Jul 3, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 3, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 3, 2024

c3024 commented Jul 4, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 4, 2024

c3024 commented Jul 4, 2024

luacmartins commented Jul 4, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 8, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 8, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 10, 2024

OSBotify commented Jul 15, 2024

rayane-d Aug 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

correct logic of `from` and `to` for narrow layout in `Shared` in `Search` #44658

correct logic of `from` and `to` for narrow layout in `Shared` in `Search` #44658

c3024 commented Jun 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

brunovjk commented Jul 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

brunovjk commented Jul 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

luacmartins commented Jul 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading