[HOLD for payment 2023-10-23] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-23] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-09][$500] Fix offline distance requests

[neil-marcellini]

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

---

Action Performed:

1. Go offline
2. Click the green plus, request money, distance
3. Enter a valid address for start and finish waypoints
4. Verify that you can click next
5. Select a workspace
6. Verify that all information shows or is TBD
7. Click request
8. Verify that the report preview shows a pending receipt image with the amount and miles as TBD
9. Click the report preview
10. Verify that the request shows as distance, with the amount and miles as TBD
11. Click on the request
12. Verify that the request shows as distance, with the amount and miles as TBD
13. Go online
14. Verify that all pending data fills

Expected Result:

All verifications pass

Actual Result:

The first verification step fails

Workaround:

Create requests online only

Platforms:

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

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

Version Number: v1.3.74-2
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:

Screen.Recording.2023-09-27.at.11.43.02.AM.mov

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @neil-marcellini
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1695786405195339

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01a10d251bbc7f89f6
• Upwork Job ID: 1706878203997462528
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-27

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01a10d251bbc7f89f6

[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]

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

[neil-marcellini]

I'm going to push a quick fix to enable the next button, then we should fix the rest externally.

[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]

Current assignee @neil-marcellini is eligible for the Engineering assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[Pujan92]

I'm going to push a quick fix to enable the next button, then we should fix the rest externally.

Is this regression from #27989?

[kushu7]

Proposal

all verification points are working already except first

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

Handling offline case when requesting money using distance.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The issue is shouldFetchRoute is set to true when we select both start and end point and its start showing loading indicator here. as we are not handling offline case here

App/src/components/DistanceRequest.js

Line 302 in cf9ad20

isLoading={isLoadingRoute || shouldFetchRoute}

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

we should update this condition to show loading indicator only when we are online.

const shouldFetchRoute = (isRouteAbsentWithoutErrors || haveValidatedWaypointsChanged) && !isLoadingRoute && _.size(validatedWaypoints) > 1 && !isOffline;

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

None

[sakluger]

Hey @neil-marcellini, I'm a little confused, who do we need to pay for this issue and how much? It looks like you reported and fixed the bug, do I just need to pay @mollfpr for reviewing the PR?

[peterdbarkerUK]

Hey @neil-marcellini - is this a regression or a separate issue?

[neil-marcellini]

Hey @neil-marcellini, I'm a little confused, who do we need to pay for this issue and how much? It looks like you reported and fixed the bug, do I just need to pay @mollfpr for reviewing the PR?

Yeah only C+ PR review payment is needed. @mollfpr did a good amount of review, but then was unresponsive so I had @mananjadhav finish it off. Maybe then can agree to split the payment? Or we pay @mananjadhav the full amount since he ultimately helped me to GSD.

[neil-marcellini]

Hey @neil-marcellini - is this a regression or a separate issue?

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I commented and closed it as a duplicate.

[sakluger]

Thanks @neil-marcellini. Ideally you shouldn't need to bump, but it can help - since you didn't bump @mollfpr anywhere to finish reviewing, I think it's fair to split the $500 between the two reviewers. @mollfpr @mananjadhav does that sounds fair to you two?

[mananjadhav]

It was an exception and @mollfpr did post an update here about their unavailability. I think am okay with the split here.

[sakluger]

Okay, thanks @mananjadhav for the context. Both @mananjadhav and @mollfpr are eligible for payment via Manual Request, I'll post the payout summary below. Can you each let me know once you've completed the manual request so I can close the GH issue? Thanks!

Summarizing payouts for this issue:

Contributor+: @mananjadhav $250 (payable via Manual Request)
Contributor+: @mollfpr $250 (payable via Manual Request)

The overall $500 payment is being split between the two reviewers.

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 payment approved for @mananjadhav based on summary above.

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.84-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Show eReceipts for distance requests #27204

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-23. 🎊

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:

• @fedirjh requires payment

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:

• [@fedirjh] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@fedirjh] 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:
• [@fedirjh] 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:
• [@fedirjh] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@fedirjh] 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.
• [@sakluger] 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 1.3.84-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Show eReceipts for distance requests #27204

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-23. 🎊

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:

• @fedirjh requires payment

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:

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

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 payment approved for @mollfpr based on BZ summary.

[sakluger]

All payments have been approved, closing the issue 👍