[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [$250] Concierge - There is submit, split and pay options in Concierge chat

@dylanexpensify

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: 9.0.5-4
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to Concierge chat
Click +

Expected Result:

There will be no submit, split and pay options in Concierge chat

Actual Result:

There is submit, split and pay options in Concierge chat

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6536003_1720451847402.20240708_231508.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01bee66e73dbacfc76
Upwork Job ID: 1810949265008721349
Last Price Increase: 2024-07-10
Automatic offers:

paultsimura | Reviewer | 103077735

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @dylanexpensify

@dylanexpensify

Triggered auto assignment to @dylanexpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

@dylanexpensify

@dylanexpensify FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors

We think that this bug might be related to #vip-vsp

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Concierge - There is submit, split and pay options in Concierge chat

What is the root cause of that problem?

We aren't checking for expensify only chats in getMoneyRequestOptions. We check for that before adding taskOption.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 5850 to 5854 in 547336d

    
           function getMoneyRequestOptions(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, policy: OnyxEntry<Policy>, reportParticipants: number[], filterDeprecatedTypes = false): IOUType[] { 
        
               // In any thread or task report, we do not allow any new expenses yet 
        
               if (isChatThread(report) || isTaskReport(report) || isInvoiceReport(report) || isSystemChat(report)) { 
        
                   return []; 
        
               }

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 1132 to 1142 in 547336d

    
           function canCreateTaskInReport(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean { 
        
               const otherParticipants = Object.keys(report?.participants ?? {}) 
        
                   .map(Number) 
        
                   .filter((accountID) => accountID !== currentUserAccountID); 
        
               const areExpensifyAccountsOnlyOtherParticipants = otherParticipants.length >= 1 && otherParticipants.every((accountID) => CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.includes(accountID)); 
        
               if (areExpensifyAccountsOnlyOtherParticipants && isDM(report)) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               return true; 
        
           }

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Use || isExpensifyOnlyParticipantInReport(report) here so it returns empty array.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can use isExpensifyOnlyParticipantInReport in AttachmentPickerWithMenuItems if we don't want to add that in getMoneyRequestOptions.

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

There is submit, split and pay options in Concierge chat.

What is the root cause of that problem?

In the below code, there's no check to return empty list for concierge chat:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 5851 to 5854 in 547336d

    
           // In any thread or task report, we do not allow any new expenses yet 
        
           if (isChatThread(report) || isTaskReport(report) || isInvoiceReport(report) || isSystemChat(report)) { 
        
               return []; 
        
           }

Also, there's another bug. isConciergeChatReport logic doesn't filter out the logged in user:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 1046 to 1049 in 547336d

    
           function isConciergeChatReport(report: OnyxInputOrEntry<Report>): boolean { 
        
               const participantAccountIDs = Object.keys(report?.participants ?? {}); 
        
               return participantAccountIDs.length === 1 && Number(participantAccountIDs[0]) === CONST.ACCOUNT_ID.CONCIERGE && !isChatThread(report); 
        
           }

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Update isConciergeChatReport method to filter out the logged in user:

function isConciergeChatReport(report: OnyxInputOrEntry<Report>): boolean {
    const participantAccountIDs = Object.keys(report?.participants ?? {})
        .map(Number)
        .filter((accountID) => accountID !== currentUserAccountID);
    return participantAccountIDs.length === 1 && Number(participantAccountIDs[0]) === CONST.ACCOUNT_ID.CONCIERGE && !isChatThread(report);
}

Then, add || isConciergeChatReport(report) check in getMoneyRequestOptions.

if (isChatThread(report) || isTaskReport(report) || isInvoiceReport(report) || isSystemChat(report) || isConciergeChatReport(report)) {
    return [];
}

Else, we can also use isExpensifyOnlyParticipantInReport instead of just concierge check if we want to exclude all accounts in CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

There is money request option shown in Concierge chat.

What is the root cause of that problem?

Currently, we already have a condition to not show money request options for expensify chat including Concierge.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 5862 to 5867 in dd96852

    
           // We don't allow IOU actions if an Expensify account is a participant of the report, unless the policy that the report is on is owned by an Expensify account 
        
           const doParticipantsIncludeExpensifyAccounts = lodashIntersection(reportParticipants, CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS).length > 0; 
        
           const isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts = report?.policyID ? CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.includes(getPolicy(report?.policyID ?? '-1')?.ownerAccountID ?? -1) : false; 
        
           if (doParticipantsIncludeExpensifyAccounts && !isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts) { 
        
               return []; 
        
           }

However, isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts is always true. For Concierge, the policyID is __FAKE__ because it's not tied to a policy. Because it's not tied to a policy, the ownerAccountID defaults to -1 and when we check CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.includes(-1), it returns true.

(This happens after the default to -1 PR. Previously, the default ownerAccountID is 0)

That's because in the list, there are some account IDs that default to -1.

App/src/CONST.ts

Line 1570 in dd96852

ADMIN: Number(Config?.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_ID_ADMIN ?? -1),

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Filter out account IDs of -1.

App/src/CONST.ts

Lines 2275 to 2294 in dd96852

    
           get EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS() { 
        
               return [ 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.ACCOUNTING, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.ADMIN, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.BILLS, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.CHRONOS, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.CONCIERGE, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.CONTRIBUTORS, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.FIRST_RESPONDER, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.HELP, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.INTEGRATION_TESTING_CREDS, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.PAYROLL, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.QA, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.QA_TRAVIS, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.RECEIPTS, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.REWARDS, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.STUDENT_AMBASSADOR, 
        
                   this.ACCOUNT_ID.SVFG, 
        
               ]; 
        
           },

OR

Only call includes when the ownerAccountID is > 0, otherwise return false.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 5864 in dd96852

    
           const isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts = report?.policyID ? CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.includes(getPolicy(report?.policyID ?? '-1')?.ownerAccountID ?? -1) : false;

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01bee66e73dbacfc76

moving

@paultsimura

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @paultsimura (External)

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

@paultsimura

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.7-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

Fix money request options show in Concierge chat #45294

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-24. 🎊

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

@paultsimura requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
@bernhardoj requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

@paultsimura

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:

[@paultsimura] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
[@paultsimura] 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:
[@paultsimura] 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:
[@paultsimura] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
[@paultsimura] 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.
[@dylanexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

Payment coming up!

The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: [TS Migration] Define a concise way to access or default to an inexistent record #42634
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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/42634/files#r1686586602
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: N/A
Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug: Yes
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.

Regression Test Proposal

Log in as any account
Open the Concierge chat
Click "+"
Verify there are no payment-related options in the menu

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

@paultsimura

Payment summary:

Contributor: @paultsimura $250
Contributor+: @bernhardoj $250

Please apply/request!

Done

@bernhardoj

$250 approved for @bernhardoj

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [$250] Concierge - There is submit, split and pay options in Concierge chat #44985

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

15 remaining items

Regression Test Proposal

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

	function getMoneyRequestOptions(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, policy: OnyxEntry<Policy>, reportParticipants: number[], filterDeprecatedTypes = false): IOUType[] {
	// In any thread or task report, we do not allow any new expenses yet
	if (isChatThread(report) \|\| isTaskReport(report) \|\| isInvoiceReport(report) \|\| isSystemChat(report)) {
	return [];
	}

	function canCreateTaskInReport(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {
	const otherParticipants = Object.keys(report?.participants ?? {})
	.map(Number)
	.filter((accountID) => accountID !== currentUserAccountID);
	const areExpensifyAccountsOnlyOtherParticipants = otherParticipants.length >= 1 && otherParticipants.every((accountID) => CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.includes(accountID));
	if (areExpensifyAccountsOnlyOtherParticipants && isDM(report)) {
	return false;
	}

	return true;
	}

	function isConciergeChatReport(report: OnyxInputOrEntry<Report>): boolean {
	const participantAccountIDs = Object.keys(report?.participants ?? {});
	return participantAccountIDs.length === 1 && Number(participantAccountIDs[0]) === CONST.ACCOUNT_ID.CONCIERGE && !isChatThread(report);
	}

	// We don't allow IOU actions if an Expensify account is a participant of the report, unless the policy that the report is on is owned by an Expensify account
	const doParticipantsIncludeExpensifyAccounts = lodashIntersection(reportParticipants, CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS).length > 0;
	const isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts = report?.policyID ? CONST.EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS.includes(getPolicy(report?.policyID ?? '-1')?.ownerAccountID ?? -1) : false;
	if (doParticipantsIncludeExpensifyAccounts && !isPolicyOwnedByExpensifyAccounts) {
	return [];
	}

	get EXPENSIFY_ACCOUNT_IDS() {
	return [
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.ACCOUNTING,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.ADMIN,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.BILLS,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.CHRONOS,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.CONCIERGE,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.CONTRIBUTORS,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.FIRST_RESPONDER,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.HELP,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.INTEGRATION_TESTING_CREDS,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.PAYROLL,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.QA,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.QA_TRAVIS,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.RECEIPTS,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.REWARDS,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.STUDENT_AMBASSADOR,
	this.ACCOUNT_ID.SVFG,
	];
	},

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [$250] Concierge - There is submit, split and pay options in Concierge chat #44985

Description

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

Activity

melvin-bot commented on Jul 8, 2024

lanitochka17 commented on Jul 8, 2024

lanitochka17 commented on Jul 8, 2024

Krishna2323 commented on Jul 8, 2024

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

ShridharGoel commented on Jul 8, 2024

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

bernhardoj commented on Jul 9, 2024

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

What is the root cause of that problem?

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

melvin-bot commented on Jul 10, 2024

dylanexpensify commented on Jul 10, 2024

melvin-bot commented on Jul 10, 2024

15 remaining items

melvin-bot commented on Jul 17, 2024

melvin-bot commented on Jul 17, 2024

melvin-bot commented on Jul 17, 2024

dylanexpensify commented on Jul 22, 2024

paultsimura commented on Jul 22, 2024

Regression Test Proposal

dylanexpensify commented on Jul 24, 2024

dylanexpensify commented on Jul 24, 2024

JmillsExpensify commented on Jul 24, 2024

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions