[HOLD for payment 2024-06-05] [HOLD for payment 2024-05-22] [QBO] Implement support for importing more than one of Classes, Customers/Projects or Locations on the tags page

[trjExpensify]

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

---

Version Number: v1.4.68-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?:
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
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @trjExpensify
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C036QM0SLJK/p1714438462878199?thread_ts=1714400674.229349&cid=C036QM0SLJK

Action Performed:

1. Create a workspace on NewDot
2. Go to More Features > Tags > Enable (you need this step for now because otherwise Tags won't show in the LHN after you connect to QBO to see the imported coding, apparently that's going to be worked on https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/387834#issuecomment-2083773292)
3. Connect to QBO
4. Go to Import
5. Check both Classes and Customers/Projects are Imported, displayed as tags (should be the default like OldDot for now)
6. Go to the Tags page in the LHN
7. Observe only the values for Classes are shown on the page

Expected Result:

1. When more than one of Classes, Customers/Projectsor Locations are selected for import, the Tags page table will represent each distinct tag level imported from QBO
2. If the tag level is required, Required will be added to the status column in the table instead of Enabled || Disabled`

3. Behind the "Settings" button on the Tags page header in the RHP:
   3a. the toggle for "Members must tag all spend" will remain, allowing users to bulk toggle on/off making all tag levels mandatory.
   3b. the Custom tag name field will be removed; users will be able to set the Custom tag name a level deeper for each of the tag levels (see 4b. below)

4. Clicking on a tag level name in the table will open the RHP, which will contain:
   4a. A required toggle, when enabled it makes the tag level required coding on the workspace and sets Required in the main Tags page table
   4b. A Custom tag name > push input row, that opens a simple "Custom tag name" page with a text input to rename the tag level.

4c. A list of all of the tag values for that tag level (that opens up the individual tag value edit page with the same permissions and logic that exists today).

4d. checkboxes right-aligned each of the tag values to facilitate bulk select capabilities via the [Selected X v] button with the same permissions and logic that exists today.

Actual Result:

Only the first level of tag is shown in the Tags page table, additional levels imported are ignored.

Workaround:

Can the user still use Expensify without this being fixed? Have you informed them of the workaround?
None

Platforms:

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

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

See expected results for the intended solution. Below is today:

View all open jobs on GitHub

CC: @hayata-suenaga @aldo-expensify @zanyrenney @narefyev91 @teneeto

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @trjExpensify

[melvin-bot]

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

[narefyev91]

Will start working on this one

[hayata-suenaga]

Are there two PRs going on? @s77rt and @narefyev91

#41337
#41351

[trjExpensify]

We can close #41337. Nikolay is OoO now and @s77rt took over and had to create a new PR in #41351. 👍

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @roryabraham, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[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]

⚠️ 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 1.4.73-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Add missing multi tag view #41351

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-05-22. 🎊

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

• @s77rt requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)
• @narefyev91 does not require payment (Contractor)

[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:

• [@s77rt] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@s77rt] 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:
• [@s77rt] 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:
• [@s77rt] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@s77rt] 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:

[s77rt]

Checklist ^ not applicable. Not a bug but a new feature

[trjExpensify]

Yep, sounds good. Sitting out the regression period. 👍

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @s77rt paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)
• Contributor: @narefyev91 is from an agency-contributor and not due payment

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

[ikevin127]

@trjExpensify I reviewed PR #41351 as C+. There were some regressions. Is there any payment due here given the facts ?

[trjExpensify]

Yeah, just the one from my perspective, so I've sent offers for $250. 👍

[trjExpensify]

@ikevin127 - paid!

[trjExpensify]

@s77rt - paid!

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.76-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Make header buttons flexible (grow and shrink) to take full available space #42443

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-05. 🎊

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

• @s77rt requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)
• @narefyev91 does not require payment (Contractor)

[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:

• [@s77rt] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@s77rt] 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:
• [@s77rt] 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:
• [@s77rt] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@s77rt] 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: