Adds Client-side Violations when creating money requests

[cdanwards]

Fixed Issues

$ #31092
PROPOSAL:

This is another addition to bringing the Violations functionality to New Expensify. This PR addresses building the required client side onyx data for violations when creating a money request.

Tests

General Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Setup:

1. Follow the instructions here to set up a policy with a workspace in New Dot.
2. Within the policy in Old Dot, navigate Settings > Categories and verify that People must categorize expenses is enabled, and make sure there's at least one category on the policy
3. Within the policy in Old Dot, navigate Settings > Tags and verify that People must tag expenses is enabled, and make sure there's at least one tag enabled on the policy

Testing the code worked correctly

1. Navigate to the ONYXDB -> keyvaluepairs within your browser storage tab
2. Identify the transaction that was created with the dollar amount you specified, should look like transactions_someID. If you open chrome dev tools before making the money request, you can inspect the response which should have the transactionID
3. Verify there's a transaction violations object with the corresponding ID like transactionViolations_SameIDasTransaction, with the missingCategory and missingTag violations in the array (unless the test says otherwise)

What to test

1. Create a manual money request and request money from your workspace with the policy you set up earlier. You should see the missingCategory and missingTag violations. Add a category and a tag, and confirm the violations are gone
2. Create a distance money request and request money from your workspace with the policy you set up earlier. You should see the missingCategory and missingTag violations. Add a category and a tag, and confirm the violations are gone
3. Create a scan request and request money from your test workspace. You should see the missingCategory and missingTag violations. Add a category and a tag, and confirm the violations are gone
4. Create a manual money request and request money from another person instead of a workspace. You should NOT see a corresponding transactionViolations_ object.
5. Create a distance money request and request money from another person instead of a workspace. You should NOT see a corresponding transactionViolations_ object.
6. Create a scan money request and request money from another person instead of a workspace. You should NOT see a corresponding transactionViolations_ object.

Offline tests

For each test that generates a transactionViolations_ object, test it offline as well. The results should be the same.

QA Steps

Same as tests, both online and offline

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: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

No visible changes are expected at this point; violations are not yet displayed in the app.

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@mollfpr 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]

[cdanwards]

@cead22 This is ready for review!

[cead22]

@mollfpr please review this and complete the reviewer checklist when you get a chance

[cead22]

Why remove this? I think this is wrong, because having a separate withOnyx makes the keys in it "dependent" on the values of the previous withOnyx, right?

[cdanwards]

I wasn't aware of this! I'll ask in the open-source channel, but I'm happy to change this back.

[cead22]

When/why can this be called without a policy?

[cdanwards]

So it looks that when this file is converted to TS that the policy will be of the OnyxEntry type which could return null so this was just to go ahead and account for that. Once it is converted it can easily just be replaced with optional chaining like policy?.id.

[cead22]

I asked about the multiple withOnyx thing from the comment above on slack

So it looks that when this file is converted to TS that the policy will be of the OnyxEntry type which could return null so this was just to go ahead and account for that

But is it possible that this is because these are no longer defined in a separate withOnyx?

[mollfpr]

Leave some suggestions based on the policy keys.

@cdanwards I can't access the Slack link to see the instruction, could you put it here? Thanks!

[cdanwards]

@mollfpr no worries! Let me grab that slack conversation.

[cead22]

@mollfpr can you please re-review, re-test this when you get a chance?

[mollfpr]

Add a category and a tag, and confirm the violations are gone

@cead22 @lindboe Regarding the above step, is this on editing the request or creating a new request? I don't see it removing the transactionViolations_SameIDasTransaction from the previous request.

[lindboe]

@mollfpr This should be reviewable now!

[mollfpr]

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: mWeb Chrome

32528.mWeb-Chrome.-.1.mp4

32528.mWeb-Chrome.-.2.mp4

32528.mWeb-Chrome.-.3.mp4

32528.mWeb-Chrome.-.4.-.6.mp4

iOS: Native

32528.iOS.-.4.-.6.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

32528.mWeb-Safari.-.1.mp4

32528.mWeb-Safari.-.2.mp4

32528.mWeb-Safari.-.3.mp4

32528.mWeb-Safari.-.4.-.6.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

32528.Web.-.1.mp4

32528.Web.-.2.mp4

32528.Web.-.3.mp4

32528.Web.-.4.mp4

32528.Web.-.1.Offline.mp4

32528.Desktop.-.6.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

32528.Desktop.-.1.mp4

32528.Desktop.-.2.mp4

32528.Desktop.-.3.mp4

32528.Desktop.-.4.mp4

32528.Desktop.-.6.mp4

[mollfpr]

All yours @cead22

[cead22]

Seeing Invalid prop reportActionsof typeobjectsupplied toReportScreen, expected an array which was brought up here https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C02NK2DQWUX/p1700167185955379?thread_ts=1700167075.099769&cid=C02NK2DQWUX, and it exists in main along with several others errors

[cead22]

The Android videos were outdated, and I tried running the app on android but I was getting an error. @mollfpr ran this on native iOS (sim) after merging main into this branch (here) and things worked. I also tested on web and things worked, so I'm merging to avoid this getting more conflicts tomorrow

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cead22 in version: 1.4.23-0 🚀

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

[kavimuru]

@cdanwards Could you help us with the steps 4,5 and 6 in "What to test" section?

[mollfpr]

@kavimuru May I help you with the problem?

[kavimuru]

@mollfpr where do we have to check "You should NOT see a corresponding transactionViolations_ object.

[mollfpr]

@kavimuru The object is on the browser storage, so we can only verify it on the Web. You can see the below video on how to get there.

Screen.Recording.2024-01-09.at.20.52.27.mp4

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.4.23-4 🚀

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

[cdanwards]

@kavimuru @mollfpr Let me know if you require any more assistance! I've been out on parental leave but am now back to work.

[eh2077]

This PR caused a regression #38131 as we don't want to show those violations when a transaction is a "partial transaction", see also #38131 (comment)

So, we need to add a check for partial transactions when adding violations data.