@ArekChr Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

@Tony-MK TypeScript check fails, please fix the issues and update branch with main

Hey @ArekChr, Sorry for the delays. If you don't mind, there are two things I'm a bit curious about.

1. There are some components that are not consistent with distance requests that have recently been created offline and are TBD. Such as the money request header and total sum are supposed to show TBD. Also, the opacity of the amount and date fields are dimmed. Should I make it consistent with distance requests made offline?

2. I believe there is a bug with the ReportPreview component. When a user changes the waypoints offline, two or more map images will be displayed. One will show the pending map due to the changes we have made, and the rest will show the original map or another map. It seems to have two or more transactions when the waypoints change for a singular distance request. This bug currently occurs in staging and production. I can't seem to figure out which appropriate logic to use so that the ReportPreview component shows TBD and the correct number of maps when every request in the report is a distance request and all are TBD. What should we do about it?

Should I make it consistent with distance requests made offline?

I think we should stick to one topic in this PR and talk about other adjustments in a different issue to keep things clear and organized.

I believe there is a bug with the ReportPreview component. When a user changes the waypoints offline, two or more map images will be displayed. One will show the pending map due to the changes we have made, and the rest will show the original map or another map. It seems to have two or more transactions when the waypoints change for a singular distance request. This bug currently occurs in staging and production. I can't seem to figure out which appropriate logic to use so that the ReportPreview component shows TBD and the correct number of maps when every request in the report is a distance request and all are TBD. What should we do about it?

I think this also seems a separate issue.

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

@ArekChr, Can you check again if the regression is still occurring? It seems to have been fixed when I updated the branch with main.

Hey @ArekChr and @arosiclair, I have an important proposal to share with you about debugging the ReportPreview component. Accordin‌g to this comment I posted earlier, there are duplicate transactions, with the same transactionId, retrieved from the ReportUtils.getTransactionsWithReceipts function.

When a request's waypoints gets updated, another transaction with the same transaction ID is stored in allTransactions. This is the main reason why you will notice one or more extra images maps appear in the ReportPreview. When the user goes back online, the older transaction(s) will get deleted and number of image maps will change and becomes the exact number of distance requests.

Therefore, I kindly ask if it is possible of me to solve this bug. It's also affecting the code's accuracy on determining whether to show 'TBD' in the ReportPreview component when the hasOnlyDistanceRequests variable is true and all of the distance requests are waiting for their waypoints to be updated. Hence, my solution is after calling ReportUtils.getTransactionsWithReceipts function, we filter the latest transactions for every transaction ID and store the transactions in transactionsWithReceipts.

I believe this is an appropriate method of insuring the we display the exact number of maps and TBD appropriately. In turn, improving the offline user experience. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on my proposal. Thank you 😄

When a request's waypoints gets updated, another transaction with the same transaction ID is stored in allTransactions.

Can you find out why that's happening? This does not sound like correct behavior and it sounds like if we fix this, then your TBD problem should also be fixed.

Hey @arosiclair and @ArekChr, I have been investigating the root cause of the second problem I mentioned in #30232 (comment) and elaborated in #30232 (comment).

When a distance request is edited, a backup copy of the original transaction. If the user doesn't save the changes to the transaction, the transaction data is restored from the backup copy. Read the code snippet below on the useEffect hook used in EditRequestDistancePage to further understand the significance of creating a backup copy of a transaction.

The moment the server responds successfully, the backup transaction is deleted and is handled in the code snippet below.

Therefore, the root cause of the problem is that the ReportUtils.getTransactionsWithReceipts function, which is used for fetching transactions to display in the ReportPreview component, does not filter out the backup copies of the original transactions fetched from the TransactionUtils.getAllReportTransactions function. The functions return both the edited transaction and, if present, the backup of the original transaction.

In conclusion, if we filter out the backup copies of the original transactions, it would solve the problem mentioned in the first paragraph.

Very good breakdown @Tony-MK thanks!

In conclusion, if we filter out the backup copies of the original transactions, it would solve the problem mentioned in the first paragraph.

I agree with this. We can add an isBackup flag to the backup transaction when we create it and filter on that, though we would have to make sure we clear the flag before restoring the backup. What do you think?

I also do get the feeling that including the backup transaction in the normal transactions collection is probably going to cause more problems than it solves (like this one) so maybe we should consider moving backups to their own key. cc @tgolen since I think you designed this part

I really like the idea of moving it to a separate collection. I wish I would have thought of that in the first place. Can you make that change? It might be nice to create an onyx migration to clean out backup transactions from the main collection.

I also do get the feeling that including the backup transaction in the normal transactions collection is probably going to cause more problems than it solves (like this one) so maybe we should consider moving backups to their own key. cc @tgolen since I think you designed this part

Thank you, @arosiclair and @tgolen for your feedback. I believe we are moving forward with creating an onyx migration.

Can you make that change?

@tgolen, could you clarify to whom you were referring to make the change? Frankly, I wouldn't mind making the change.

Yeah, @Tony-MK I think you can go ahead and make that change. I actually took the lead with that on this PR I've been writing to refactor the request creation flow.

Can you make this same collection and use that for the backup transactions?

Can you make this same collection and use that for the backup transactions?

Sure, @tgolen, I can certainly do that.

But before we proceed, I have a final question. Since this PR was originally intended for a different purpose than our discussion, should I create a new PR to ensure everything remains organized?

I'd be fine with doing that in a different PR, sure.

@Tony-MK Please update PR with latest main

Should we display "TBD" in online mode optimistically, or is it better to keep it as is and update the amount only after the API returns successful data? @tgolen @arosiclair thoughts?

@Tony-MK Please update PR with latest main

Definitely and welcome back, @ArekChr

Should we display "TBD" in online mode optimistically, or is it better to keep it as is and update the amount only after the API returns successful data? @tgolen @arosiclair thoughts?

Yeah I think this is correct since there are pending changes on the waypoints even while online. UpdateDistanceRequest is one of our slower endpoints because of the distance calculations so this will be more noticeable here than in most other flows.

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 1.3.96-6 🚀

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.3.96-15 🚀

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 1.3.98-0 🚀

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.3.98-5 🚀