[HOLD for payment 2023-09-12] [$1000] RBR applies to newly created distance expenses when it shouldn't

[JmillsExpensify]

Reproduction video

RPReplay_Final1693665469.1.MP4

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01ccdddd243b0d35e1
• Upwork Job ID: 1698032042096607232
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-02
• Automatic offers:
• situchan | Contributor | 26469930
• Pujan92 | Contributor | 26470378

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @JmillsExpensify is eligible for the Bug assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01ccdddd243b0d35e1

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @JmillsExpensify is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Upwork job price has been updated to $1000

[Pujan92]

Assuming it is similar to https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1693604955703649

Proposal

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

Shows RBR for successful distance money request

What is the root cause of that problem?

In the MoneyRequestPreview we have a condition for hasMissingSmartscanFields which should not be consider for distance request. Bcoz we do not need to scan any fields for the distance request even though it has a receipt which generate through map.

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview.js

Line 156 in 57603a0

const hasFieldErrors = TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(props.transaction);

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview.js

Lines 246 to 251 in 57603a0

	{hasFieldErrors && (
	<Icon
	src={Expensicons.DotIndicator}
	fill={colors.red}
	/>
	)}

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

I think we need to consider this RBR only for scanned requests. So we can add 1 more condition to ignore distance requests.
&& !isDistanceRequest(transaction)

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

Lines 250 to 252 in 57603a0

	function hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction) {
	return hasReceipt(transaction) && !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && !areModifiedFieldsPopulated(transaction);
	}

OR
!isDistanceRequest &&

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview.js

Line 246 in 57603a0

{hasFieldErrors && (

[b4s36t4]

Proposal

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

RBR applies to newly created distance expenses when it shouldn't

What is the root cause of that problem?

We have a field called hasErrors which checks for weather the transaction is valid or not. One of the check is returning false which is causing the issue.

The preview is enabled for Scan & Distance requests both but we're only checking the status for Scan related items.

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

Line 240 in 7217a18

function isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) {

This function has the logic wrong.

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

We need to add CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.OPEN to the list which ensures we're also checking for the distance requests as well.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[b4s36t4]

Kapture.2023-09-02.at.23.38.07.mp4

[b4s36t4]

[b4s36t4]

@hayata-suenaga requesting the review. Although I humbly request you to carefully review the proposals please 😅😂

[situchan]

@Pujan92's root cause is correct and first solution looks good.
We should add condition in hasMissingSmartscanFields so that it fixes both ReportPreview and MoneyRequestPreview

[parasharrajat]

@situchan Can you please explain the basis as well? Why do you think that is correct?

[b4s36t4]

I'd say Scan and Distance are same except we're generating receipt in the backend. Loosening for one might break things somewhere else. Maybe wrong too

[Pujan92]

When we have the transaction with receipt we try to make sure whether the receipt is being scanned or not inside hasMissingSmartscanFields. But for the case of distance request we have the receipt but we already verified the data before creating the request. So for specific to that type we need to avoid checking isReceiptBeingScanned.

I think adding a condition in one place hasMissingSmartscanFields makes more sense otherwise all the places we need to avoid calling hasMissingSmartscanFields by putting a condition of not distance transaction.

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.63-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix: RBR applies to newly created distance expenses when it shouldn't #26580

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-09-12. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

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

• @Pujan92 requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @situchan requires payment offer (Contributor)

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[melvin-bot]

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:

• [@situchan] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@situchan] 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:
• [@situchan] 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:
• [@situchan] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@situchan] 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.
• [@JmillsExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @Pujan92, @hayata-suenaga, @situchan Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @Pujan92, @hayata-suenaga, @situchan 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @Pujan92, @hayata-suenaga, @situchan 8 days overdue is a lot. Should this be a Weekly issue? If so, feel free to change it!

[situchan]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Display Smartscan errors #26155
• 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/pull/26155/files#r1313964793
• 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: N/A
• Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• 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.

I don't think we need special regression test here as long as we have distance request test case in TestRail.
If regression occurs again, it's clearly noticeable after creating any distance request.

[hayata-suenaga]

waiting for payment

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @Pujan92, @hayata-suenaga, @situchan Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @Pujan92, @hayata-suenaga, @situchan 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[hayata-suenaga]

still waiting for payment

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @Pujan92, @hayata-suenaga, @situchan Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[JmillsExpensify]

Payment summary:

Issue reporter: N/A
Contributor: @Pujan92 $1,500 (price updated for internal priority; incl. urgency bonus)
Contributor+: @situchan $1,500 (price updated for internal priority; incl. urgency bonus)

[JmillsExpensify]

Offers sent to all contributors via Upwork.

[Pujan92]

Offer Accepted!

[situchan]

I already have accepted offer - #26567 (comment)

[Pujan92]

I also applied from this, needs to cancel/end the latter one.

[JmillsExpensify]

Ah thanks. The job was closed in Upwork and I wasn't able to see the contract from the job. In any case, I paid both out via Upwork and have canceled the other offers. Thanks all!