Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow setting merchant for split bill #30721

Merged
merged 26 commits into from
Dec 25, 2023
Merged

Conversation

youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor

@youssef-lr youssef-lr commented Nov 1, 2023

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #29732
$ #29691

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
  1. Create a manual split and make sure you set a merchant and a description.
  2. Verify the split preview shows the merchant but not the description.
  3. Create another split by supplying only the description, make sure the description is shown in the preview.

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
  1. Create a manual split and make sure you set a merchant and a description.
  2. Verify the split preview shows the merchant but not the description.
  3. Create another split by supplying only the description, make sure the description is shown in the preview.

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android / native
    • Android / Chrome
    • iOS / native
    • iOS / Safari
    • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS / Desktop
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (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
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • 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
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • 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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

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

@youssef-lr youssef-lr self-assigned this Nov 1, 2023
@youssef-lr youssef-lr changed the title Allow setting merchant for split bill [HOLD Web-E #39462] Allow setting merchant for split bill Nov 1, 2023
@youssef-lr youssef-lr changed the title [HOLD Web-E #39462] Allow setting merchant for split bill Allow setting merchant for split bill Nov 3, 2023
@youssef-lr youssef-lr marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2023 18:32
@youssef-lr youssef-lr requested a review from a team as a code owner November 3, 2023 18:32
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from aimane-chnaif and removed request for a team November 3, 2023 18:32
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 3, 2023

@aimane-chnaif 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]

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

Please pull main as the branch is 1 week behind

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done @aimane-chnaif

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

bump @aimane-chnaif

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

Custom merchant seems not working

Screen.Recording.2023-11-14.at.9.08.06.PM.mov

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should be fixed now @aimane-chnaif, sorry about that. I remember pushing this commit but I guess something went wrong and I didn't notice.

!_.isEmpty(requestMerchant) && !props.isBillSplit && requestMerchant !== CONST.TRANSACTION.PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT && requestMerchant !== CONST.TRANSACTION.DEFAULT_MERCHANT;
const shouldShowDescription = !_.isEmpty(description) && !shouldShowMerchant;
const shouldShowMerchant = !_.isEmpty(requestMerchant) && requestMerchant !== CONST.TRANSACTION.PARTIAL_TRANSACTION_MERCHANT && requestMerchant !== CONST.TRANSACTION.DEFAULT_MERCHANT;
const merchantOrDescription = shouldShowMerchant ? requestMerchant : description || '';
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Our design is we either show the merchant if it's not the default one or empty, otherwise we show the description.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@youssef-lr youssef-lr Nov 14, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cc @trjExpensify @shawnborton this is going to fix the merchant having a small font size as well. How does this look like?

Screenshot 2023-11-14 at 22 17 09

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That looks good to me, but I'll defer to Shawn.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That looks good to me. Can you also take a look at this one while you are here? Thanks!

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

Please fix conflict when you're back

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@marcochavezf can you please check #30680 (comment)?
Otherwise let them continue and hold this PR?

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

#31604 is conflicting on MoneyRequestPreview

@marcochavezf
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm if I understand correctly, this PR and #31604 are fixing the problem, correct?

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

aimane-chnaif commented Nov 22, 2023

#31604 (which fixes #30680) is partial fix of this PR

tgolen
tgolen previously approved these changes Dec 15, 2023
Comment on lines 326 to 332
{(shouldShowDescription || shouldShowMerchant) && <Text style={[styles.colorMuted]}>{merchantOrDescription}</Text>}
{!isCurrentUserManager && props.shouldShowPendingConversionMessage && (
<Text style={[styles.textLabel, styles.colorMuted]}>{translate('iou.pendingConversionMessage')}</Text>
)}
{(shouldShowDescription || (shouldShowMerchant && props.isBillSplit)) && (
<Text style={[styles.colorMuted]}>{shouldShowDescription ? description : requestMerchant}</Text>
)}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will change the position. Is it expected?

Before:
Screenshot 2023-12-16 at 11 35 57 PM

After:
Screenshot 2023-12-16 at 11 34 06 PM

Copy link
Contributor Author

@youssef-lr youssef-lr Dec 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated, I think it doesn't look right, also removed muted style for the description or merchant

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

bump @aimane-chnaif, can we try and get this merged today please

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

The major concern is still remaining

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry I missed that, that's an intentional change in this PR. SmartScan should take care of those fields and not the user.

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

bump @aimane-chnaif

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@youssef-lr please pull main. going to re-test now

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

This maybe out of scope but manually updating split scan fields when offline is ignored

Repro step:

  1. Turn off network
  2. Split bill with scan
  3. Click on split preview and manually update amount and merchant
  4. Turn on network
  5. Step 3 is reverted and go back to scan request
Screen.Recording.2023-12-25.at.3.27.13.AM.mov

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah it's out of scope. I'll look into that though. Thanks for catching this!

@@ -1156,7 +1156,7 @@ function createSplitsAndOnyxData(participants, currentUserLogin, currentUserAcco
'',
'',
'',
merchant,
merchant || Localize.translateLocal('iou.request'),
Copy link
Contributor

@aimane-chnaif aimane-chnaif Dec 25, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This causes regression when user language is Spanish and merchant is not set

Screen.Recording.2023-12-25.at.4.37.27.AM.mov

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's okay, we're going to deprecate the Request merchant soon on P2P requests. Here's the plan from a private issue:

Make manual IOU expenses only have manually entered amount and description:
a. Don't show Merchant or Date fields in a hidden "detailed" section
b. Don't show Merchant: Request this is confusing and seems broken

Show Merchant and/or Date on SmartScanned IOU expenses only if they succeeded.
a. Don't show Merchant: Unknown
b. Don't show a RBR if the merchant isn't read
c. If the SmartScan fails to get one or the other, just hide that field -- exactly like a manual request

For expenses on expense reports, however, require Merchant, Date, and Amount -- and show a RBR if any are missing, for both manual and SmartScanned expenses

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

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(theme.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 the PR modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
  • 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

Android: Native
android.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
mchrome.mov
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
msafari.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
web-scan.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mov

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from rlinoz December 25, 2023 15:49
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 25, 2023

@rlinoz 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]

@youssef-lr youssef-lr merged commit bc2ddde into main Dec 25, 2023
15 of 17 checks passed
@youssef-lr youssef-lr deleted the youssef_split_bill_merchant branch December 25, 2023 21:17
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/youssef-lr in version: 1.4.17-0 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 cancelled 🔪
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.4.17-8 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 failure ❌
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

@@ -337,7 +346,6 @@ function IOURequestStepConfirmation({
bankAccountRoute={ReportUtils.getBankAccountRoute(report)}
iouMerchant={transaction.merchant}
iouCreated={transaction.created}
isScanRequest={requestType === CONST.IOU.REQUEST_TYPE.SCAN}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this change caused a regression #33588

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants