Skip to content

[HOLD for payment 2024-04-15] DEV: In the Request money modal amount is prefilled with 0.00 #39537

Closed

Description

@m-natarajan

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!


Version Number: Main
Reproducible in staging?: n/a
Reproducible in production?: n/a
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: @mountiny
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1712168648612729

Action Performed:

  1. Open app
  2. Click on "Request money"
  3. Observe the Big number pad

Expected Result:

Amount is not prefilled

Actual Result:

the request money modal amount is pre-filled with 0.00 and you have to delete those 0 to be able to write your desired amount in

Workaround:

unknown

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

Add any screenshot/video evidence
image (9)

View all open jobs on GitHub

Activity

  1. added
    BugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.
    on Apr 3, 2024
  2. melvin-bot commented on Apr 3, 2024

    @melvin-bot

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

  3. MelvinBot commented on Apr 3, 2024

    @MelvinBot
    Contributor

    This has been labelled "Needs Reproduction". Follow the steps here: https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/16989

  4. Nodebrute commented on Apr 3, 2024

    @Nodebrute
    Contributor

    @abzokhattab I believe this might be a regression stemming from your PR. Could you please confirm?

  5. abzokhattab commented on Apr 3, 2024

    @abzokhattab
    Contributor

    @Nodebrute Correct. we thought this would be fine to have. but i agree we need to change this for a smoother UX.

    let me know what you think @dangrous @eVoloshchak , and if we need to have a special handling for the zero value then.

  6. mountiny commented on Apr 4, 2024

    @mountiny
    Contributor

    I think this is pretty back UX so we should revert or find a fix quickly which I feel like will be hard to do while maintaining cross-platform appraoch

  7. dangrous commented on Apr 4, 2024

    @dangrous
    Contributor

    Honestly I went back and forth, I see it both ways. It's good to have a second opinion! I think if you think it's best to revert and then regroup on the original PR/issue, then that makes sense to me. Since I'm still on leave officially, do you think you can work to get that done shortly? I can keep checking in though!

  8. added
    ReviewingHas a PR in review
    and removed on Apr 4, 2024
  9. eVoloshchak commented on Apr 4, 2024

    @eVoloshchak
    Contributor

    We reverted the PR in #39610, this can be closed and we'll continue work In #34894

  10. melvin-bot commented on Apr 4, 2024

    @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.

  11. self-assigned this
    on Apr 4, 2024
  12. mountiny commented on Apr 4, 2024

    @mountiny
    Contributor

    thanks for the revert @eVoloshchak

    @dangrous we can definitely reassign that issue, feel free to do so

  13. melvin-bot commented on Apr 5, 2024

    @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.

  14. greg-schroeder commented on Apr 5, 2024

    @greg-schroeder
    Contributor

    Closing per #39537 (comment)

  15. added
    Awaiting PaymentAuto-added when associated PR is deployed to production
    and removed on Apr 8, 2024
  16. changed the title [-]DEV: In the Request money modal amount is prefilled with 0.00[/-] [+][HOLD for payment 2024-04-15] DEV: In the Request money modal amount is prefilled with 0.00[/+] on Apr 8, 2024
  17. melvin-bot commented on Apr 8, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

  18. melvin-bot commented on Apr 8, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.60-13 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

    If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-04-15. 🎊

  19. melvin-bot commented on Apr 8, 2024

    @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:

    • [@mountiny] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
    • [@mountiny] 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:
    • [@mountiny] 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:
    • [@mountiny] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
    • [@mountiny] 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.
    • [@greg-schroeder] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

Awaiting PaymentAuto-added when associated PR is deployed to productionBugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.Needs ReproductionReproducible steps neededWeeklyKSv2

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions