[HOLD for payment 2023-10-02] [HOLD for payment 2023-09-29] IOU - Next button disabled when requesting a new distance IOU offline

[lanitochka17]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Issue found when executing PR #26836

Action Performed:

1. Launch the app logged in
2. Go offline
3. Click FAB > request money
4. Select distance tab
5. Enter start and finish addresses

Expected Result:

User should be able to click Next and there the fields amount and distance are filled as "TBD"

Actual Result:

User should be able to click Next and there the fields amount and distance are filled as "TBD"

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android / native
• Android / Chrome
• iOS / native
• iOS / Safari
• MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• MacOS / Desktop

Version Number: 1.3.72-6

Reproducible in staging?: Yes

Reproducible in production?: Yes

If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:

Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):

Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856

Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

Bug6207748_Recording__328.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Slack conversation:

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @kevinksullivan (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[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

[bernhardoj]

#26705 disables the button when going offline. Looks like when #26836 merged with main, they missed the offline change.

cc: @paultsimura @Ollyws @neil-marcellini

[neil-marcellini]

Ah shoot yeah you're right. Thanks for finding that. @paultsimura would you please put up a quick fix? This is a deploy blocker.

[OSBotify]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open StagingDeployCash deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @youssef-lr (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[neil-marcellini]

I'll take care of this one since it's very early for Paul.

[paultsimura]

@neil-marcellini thank you for taking care of the PR.

I still do not understand how my original PR affected the isOffline logic – you can see that my PR's diff with latest main has not changed the isOffline logic for the button's isDisabled.

Also, from this discussion with you, this behavior seemed expected.

Could you please point me to the commit where I overwritten the change that allowed requesting in offline mode?
Or we just should have allowed the offline distance request in our PR and missed it?
Just so I could understand if that was my regression or just some requirements that we missed.

[Ollyws]

I agree with @paultsimura, this behaviour was noted in the PR and considered expected as @paultsimura pointed out. We didn't modify anything around the isOffline logic for the button.

[bernhardoj]

@paultsimura yes, it's not a regression from your PR. What I mean here is, in the middle of your ongoing PR, there is another PR merged that disables the button when offline, so when you merge with the main, you will get that behavior.

However, this issue is only created after your PR because your PR expects the distance request to work while offline.

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.72-11 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Allow creating distance requests while offline #27908

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-09-29. 🎊

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

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:

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

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.73-1 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Allow creating distance requests while offline #27908

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-02. 🎊

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

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:

• [@neil-marcellini] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: fix: BUG: [distance] request confirmation offline doesn't show TBD #26836
• [@neil-marcellini] 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: fix: BUG: [distance] request confirmation offline doesn't show TBD #26836 (comment)
• [@neil-marcellini] 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: Not necessary
• [@neil-marcellini] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@neil-marcellini] 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.
• [@kevinksullivan] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

@kevinksullivan, @neil-marcellini Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[neil-marcellini]

Regression Test Proposal

I think we should have a regression test since it's simple to test and easy to break.

1. Launch the app logged in
2. Go offline
3. Click FAB > request money
4. Select distance tab
5. Enter start and finish addresses
6. Verify you can click Next and there the fields amount and distance are filled as "TBD"

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[kevinksullivan]

@Ollyws sent you an offer for PR review

https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~015338a197d592b915

[Ollyws]

@kevinksullivan Thanks but I didn't review this one.

[neil-marcellini]

@Ollyws you reviewed the PR and filled out the checklist here

[Ollyws]

@neil-marcellini Oh I see, so this is being counted as a regression of #26836, with the accompanying 50% penalty then?

[melvin-bot]

@kevinksullivan, @neil-marcellini Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[neil-marcellini]

@neil-marcellini Oh I see, so this is being counted as a regression of #26836, with the accompanying 50% penalty then?

Yes I think so. Let's get the payment wrapped up here please.

[paultsimura]

Hey @neil-marcellini could you please check these comments?

#27895 (comment)
#27895 (comment)

I still don't think this was a regression, since enabling the offline flow was not on the plate of the original issue and was even clearly discussed in the PR.

However, if I'm referencing the wrong issue – please just disregard this message.

[Ollyws]

@neil-marcellini Ah we have already been paid for the original issue.

Although I'm happy to go with whatever decision the team makes, I was fully aware of this peice of code as it had to be reverted to test the PR atall, it's just I understood this comment of yours to mean that this was essentially a closed flow until a later date and we were to leave it disabled. So a communication error, rather than a regression, in my opinion.

[neil-marcellini]

Ok sorry about that and thanks for explaining. I see that the "regression" came from this PR. Also as you mentioned it wasn't really a regression because it was expected at that time. It's all very confusing so let's not penalize any payments.

@neil-marcellini Ah we have already been paid for the original issue.

Ah ok great, then I'm closing this.