[HOLD for payment 2024-04-05] [Simplified Collect][Taxes] Optimistically create default tax rates

[luacmartins]

Coming from this PR and this comment, we need to optimistically create default tax rates when enabling the Tax feature on the More features page.

This issue has two parts to it.

1. We need to optimistically create the default rates in App when enabling the feature
2. The backend needs to process the created rates and store it in the DB

cc @filip-solecki @kosmydel

[melvin-bot]

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

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

• Optimistically create default tax rates

What is the root cause of that problem?

• In here, we do not have a logic to create the optimistic tax data once when enabling the feature

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

• Generally, when enabling the tax feature, we need to set the default data to policy.taxRates if it is not set yet:

{
    "defaultExternalID": "id_TAX_EXEMPT",
    "defaultValue": "0%",
    "foreignTaxDefault": "id_TAX_EXEMPT",
    "name": "Tax",
    "taxes": {
        "id_TAX_EXEMPT": {
            "name": "Tax exempt",
            "value": "0%"
        },
        "id_TAX_OPTION_1": {
            "name": "Tax option 1",
            "value": "5%"
        }
    }
}

• Below is the details steps:

1. Create a optimisticTaxRatesData:

    const optimisticTaxRatesData = {
        onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
        key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY}${policyID}`,
        value: {
            tax: {
                trackingEnabled: enabled,
            },
            taxRates: {
                defaultExternalID: 'id_TAX_EXEMPT',
                defaultValue: '0%',
                foreignTaxDefault: 'id_TAX_EXEMPT',
                name: 'Tax',
                taxes: {
                    id_TAX_EXEMPT: {
                        name: 'Tax exempt',
                        value: '0%',
                    },
                    id_TAX_OPTION_1: {
                        name: 'Tax option 1',
                        value: '5%',
                    },
                },
            },
        },
    };

2. Used the condition isEmpty(policy.taxRates) && enabled to decide whether we should use the above optimisticData or not.

3. If the API is called failed, update the failureData as well.

4. We also need to consider the policyTaxRates_policyID data

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

• NA

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[nkdengineer]

@luacmartins Can contributor work on this issue?

[luacmartins]

Yes, I think that'd be ok if you can prioritize this issue and get a PR up in a day.

[nkdengineer]

@luacmartins Sure thanks. Can yoou assign the issue to me then I will create PR for it

[nkdengineer]

I am working on it

[DylanDylann]

@luacmartins This issue comes from #37870, If we need a C+ to review PR, I am happy to take over as a high-priority

[nkdengineer]

@luacmartins The PR #38375 is ready to review

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[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 1.4.57-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: add default rates data #38375

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-04-05. 🎊

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

• @nkdengineer requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

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

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @nkdengineer paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@trjExpensify)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[rojiphil]

@MelvinBot @trjExpensify I was a reviewer for the PR as can be seen here.
And it looks like my name got missed in the payment summary. Please note.

[trjExpensify]

Assigned you so we track that, @rojiphil. Confirming the number of regressions here. One false positive, one legit. Sound right?

[luacmartins]

@trjExpensify I this this one is also a false positive, since the comment in the linked issue mentions that this PR is solving it. So I don't think we had any legit regressions on this one.

[trjExpensify]

Okay, perfect. Works for me! Payment summary as follows:

• $500 to @rojiphil for the C+ review
• $500 to @nkdengineer for the fix

Offers sent!

[rojiphil]

@trjExpensify Offer accepted. Thanks.

[trjExpensify]

Settled up with you both!