Update getSubmitToAccountID with category and tag approver #51196

nkdengineer · 2024-10-21T18:35:30Z

Details

Update getSubmitToAccountID with category and tag approver

Fixed Issues

$ #51001
PROPOSAL: #51001 (comment)

Tests

Precondition:

Create a WS and invite three users: employee, approver1, approver2
Enable workflows and assign admin as an approver
Add approver1 as approver of any category (CAT_APPROVER) in OD
Add approver 2 as approver of any tag (TAG_APPROVER) in OD

[Employee] Go to WS chat and submit an expense with the category CAT_APPROVER
[Employee] Submit the expense and verify that the approver1 appears in the next step and the expense is submitted successfully
[Employee] Submit another expense with the tag TAG_APPROVER
[Employee] Submit the expense and verify that the approver2 appears in the next step and the expense is submitted successfully
[Employee] Submit two expenses, the first expense with the category CAT_APPROVER and the second one with the tag TAG_APPROVER
[Employee] Submit two expenses and verify that the approver1 appears in the next step and that the expense is submitted successfully
[Employee] Submit two expenses, the first expense with the tag TAG_APPROVER and the second one with the category CAT_APPROVER
[Employee] Submit two expenses and verify that the approver1 appears in the next step and that the expense is submitted successfully

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Do the same step above and only need to verify that the approver display in the next step is correct.

QA Steps

[Employee] Go to WS chat and submit an expense with the category CAT_APPROVER
[Employee] Submit the expense and verify that the approver1 appears in the next step and the expense is submitted successfully
[Employee] Submit another expense with the tag TAG_APPROVER
[Employee] Submit the expense and verify that the approver2 appears in the next step and the expense is submitted successfully
[Employee] Submit two expenses, the first expense with the category CAT_APPROVER and the second one with the tag TAG_APPROVER
[Employee] Submit two expenses and verify that the approver1 appears in the next step and that the expense is submitted successfully
[Employee] Submit two expenses, the first expense with the tag TAG_APPROVER and the second one with the category CAT_APPROVER
[Employee] Submit two expenses and verify that the approver1 appears in the next step and that the expense is submitted successfully

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.01.42.45.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.01.40.48.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.01.53.12.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.01.39.50.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.01.34.49.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.01.46.46.mp4

melvin-bot · 2024-10-21T19:19:51Z

@suneox 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]

suneox · 2024-10-22T06:43:23Z

@Beamanator We have an issue where the approver for either a tag or a category cannot approve the expense.

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.13.16.47.mp4

Have we got another rule from the backend regarding approvers for categories or tags? And is it included in the scope of this issue?

@nkdengineer I discovered an issue where the selected approver becomes unstable if there’s a value submission error

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.13.34.41.mp4

Beamanator · 2024-10-22T08:03:27Z

Oof good to know! I'll look into this right meow

nkdengineer · 2024-10-22T08:18:26Z

@nkdengineer I discovered an issue where the selected approver becomes unstable if there’s a value submission error

@suneox I see in the video after you submit the second time there's no error so I think maybe it's a BE problem.

Beamanator · 2024-10-22T08:25:27Z

Ok so this is all a bit new at the moment (supporting category & tag approvers in NewDot) so we've def got some bugs to work out. Let's try to make each as clear & reproducible as possible so it's easy to resolve them 1 by 1 🙏

I am noticing that when the submitter submits to a category/tag approver, that approver is not invited to the workspace chat, they only have access to the expense report. I believe that's a 🐛
@suneox I see you somehow got an error 'Policy approve error', can you reproduce? I couldn't figure out how to reproduce that issue
And sorry but I'm a bit confused what exactly you're testing in your 2nd video & what the bug(s) are since it's a bit long 😅

suneox · 2024-10-22T08:39:12Z

@suneox I see you somehow got an error 'Policy approve error', can you reproduce? I couldn't figure out how to reproduce that issue

@Beamanator We can reproduce the issue in this PR after an employee submits an expense has category X that requires approval from approver A on category X, then approver A approve the expense.

And sorry but I'm a bit confused what exactly you're testing in your 2nd video & what the bug(s) are since it's a bit long

The issue happen from second 1:06 -> 1:11 (and 1:32 -> 1:39) approver change from CP 51196 to CP Approver 2

Beamanator · 2024-10-22T08:46:07Z

@Beamanator We can reproduce the issue in this PR after an employee submits an expense has category X that requires approval from approver A on category X, then approver A approve the expense.

@suneox what am I doing different here?

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.11.44.46.AM.mov

Beamanator · 2024-10-22T08:49:22Z

And sorry but I'm a bit confused what exactly you're testing in your 2nd video & what the bug(s) are since it's a bit long

The issue happen from second 1:06 -> 1:11 (and 1:32 -> 1:39) approver change from CP 51196 to CP Approver 2

I saw some things but again, it's only helpful if you have reproducible steps 🙏 from your video it looked like you clicked around kinda quickly & re-submitted even when you hit some errors instead of refreshing the page. It's useful to refresh to know if the error comes from the backend or the optimistic onyx data

suneox · 2024-10-22T10:21:55Z

The issue happen from second 1:06 -> 1:11 (and 1:32 -> 1:39) approver change from CP 51196 to CP Approver 2

I saw some things but again, it's only helpful if you have reproducible steps 🙏 from your video it looked like you clicked around kinda quickly & re-submitted even when you hit some errors instead of refreshing the page. It's useful to refresh to know if the error comes from the backend or the optimistic onyx data

I’m still trying to reproduce the issue but haven't found the exact steps to consistently reproduce it yet. So i will continue process with checklist and try it later

Beamanator · 2024-10-22T11:46:17Z

FYI I am seeing a bug locally where, when we are forwarding these category reports, initially the report action doesn't show up, but it will after a refresh -> I have a PR up to fix that

suneox · 2024-10-22T14:27:32Z

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

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.21.00.46.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.13.11.33.mp4

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.21.21.00.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.21.16.23.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.21.09.36.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-10-22.at.21.13.23.mp4

Warning: TRenderEngineProvider: Support for defaultProps was raised on slack

Warning: Function components cannot be given refs was raised on slack

Warning: findDOMNode is deprecated in StrictMode was raised on slack

suneox

The change in the priority for selecting the approver LGTM. Regarding the issue I mentioned earlier in the conversation, it seems like it was a backend issue, and I'm now unable to reproduce it.

Beamanator · 2024-10-23T17:16:44Z

@nkdengineer would you mind pulling main? I have another backend PR to fix the issue in this flow with the correct / incorrect approver following a category/tag approver - if these work well together, i think we can get this merged soon!

nkdengineer · 2024-10-23T17:24:17Z

@Beamanator Just merged.

src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Co-authored-by: Alex Beaman <dabeamanator@gmail.com>

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Beamanator · 2024-10-28T11:50:20Z

@nkdengineer just checking in, did you end up testing out #51196 (comment)?

JmillsExpensify · 2024-11-04T10:46:16Z

What's the latest on this PR? We're trying to wrap up support for this use case so that we can remove a related beta.

nkdengineer · 2024-11-04T10:49:04Z

We're waiting the backend fix here.

Beamanator · 2024-11-08T07:56:17Z

@nkdengineer the Web-E PR just went live, can you please retest?

nkdengineer · 2024-11-08T07:59:02Z

Sure.

src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts

Beamanator · 2024-11-08T11:39:05Z

So the plan will be:

Get this PR merged
Open next issue that accounts for a "better approval chain / next approver / receiver" code. In this issue we'll account for:
1. Multiple category / tag approvers
2. Managers who have been removed from the approval chain & who is next after they approve a report
3. Combinations of all of the above

src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts

Beamanator · 2024-11-08T13:59:21Z

src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts

+    if (tagApprover) {
+        return getAccountIDsByLogins([tagApprover]).at(0) ?? -1;
+    }
+
    // For policy using the optional or basic workflow, the manager is the policy default approver.
    if (([CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE.OPTIONAL, CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE.BASIC] as Array<ValueOf<typeof CONST.POLICY.APPROVAL_MODE>>).includes(getApprovalWorkflow(policy))) {


aah I was looking for this! @nkdengineer - shouldn't we move this up above the new logic since none of the loops
& transaction-fetching are needed for non-advanced-approval policies?

@Beamanator When I tested by adding the category/tag rules and didn't upgrade to advanced-approval, the category/tag rules is still applied.

That's great! But still isn't it better to return early via this check BEFORE looping through transactions? Not fixing a bug, but more efficient to return early

@Beamanator I mean that the category/tag rule should still apply for non-advanced-approval policies. If we move this after this condition, the error appears when we submit the report of non-advanced-approval policies that has transaction match category/tag approver rule.

Oh hmmmm i assumed category/tag approvals were only supported w/ Advanced approval settings, do you know if that's incorrect @garrettmknight ?

Ok so I guessed wrong 😅 You're right @nkdengineer - category/tag rule approvers should still apply for non-advanced-approval Control policies

Beamanator · 2024-11-11T09:48:57Z

Let's get this merged - I'll be creating a new issue today for the approval-side of category/tag approvers & updating the approval chain / next receiver logic

OSBotify · 2024-11-11T09:59:36Z

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

github-actions · 2024-11-11T18:39:17Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.0.60-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2024-11-13T00:42:46Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.0.60-3 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	skipped 🚫
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	skipped 🚫

nkdengineer added 4 commits October 22, 2024 01:23

update getSubmitToAccountID with category and tag approver

2af0515

revert change

c93c19d

fix lint

7d36a2b

revert pod file

3682b9f

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review October 21, 2024 19:19

nkdengineer requested a review from a team as a code owner October 21, 2024 19:19

melvin-bot bot requested review from suneox and removed request for a team October 21, 2024 19:19

nkdengineer mentioned this pull request Oct 21, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-11-20] [Simple AA in NewDot] Submit to category and tag approvers #51001

Closed

8 tasks

Merge branch 'main' into fix/51001

7b22022

suneox approved these changes Oct 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Beamanator October 22, 2024 15:57

merge main

bf5d6f5