Repository navigation
[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] Search - Grouped expenses show User submits to User instead of to Workspace #45013
Description
Activity
Triggered auto assignment to @alexpensify (
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.Triggered auto assignment to @AndrewGable (
DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:
- Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
- Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
- Fix the issue yourself.
@alexpensify 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 this issue might be related to the #collect project.
Production
18 remaining items
- changed the title
[-] Search - Grouped expenses show User submits to User instead of to Workspace[/-][+][HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] Search - Grouped expenses show User submits to User instead of to Workspace[/+]on Jul 17, 2024 Reviewinglabel has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".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:
If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-24. 🎊
For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:
- @brunovjk requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)
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:
- [@brunovjk] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
- [@brunovjk] 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:
- [@brunovjk] 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:
- [@brunovjk] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
- [@brunovjk] 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.
- [@alexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:
Reacted by Bruno RochaHello @luacmartins :D I was about to fill out the
BugZero Checklist, I'm confused, does this issue count as a regression for this PR? Thanks.I don't think so, they had different root causes.
Reacted by Bruno Rocha- [@brunovjk] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: N/A
- [@brunovjk] 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: N/A
- [@brunovjk] 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
- [@brunovjk] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Yes
- [@brunovjk] 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. * Since there's no payment due on this issue. It'll be handled in 44093, the regression test can be the same.
Payment Summary
- ROLE: @brunovjk paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)
BugZero Checklist (@alexpensify)
- I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
- I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
- I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
- I have verified the payment summary above is correct
Based on this update: #45013 (comment), there is no required payment action. Closing!
Reacted by Bruno Rocha
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?: N
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Issue reported by: Applause-Internal team
Action Performed:
Expected Result:
The grouped expenses will show that user submits to the workspace.
Actual Result:
The grouped expenses shows that user submits to the same user.
On web layout, it displays correctly, which is user submits to the workspace.
Workaround:
Unknown
Platforms:
Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?
Screenshots/Videos
Bug6536279_1720469431803.RPReplay_Final1720469217.mp4
View all open jobs on GitHub
Issue Owner
Current Issue Owner: @alexpensify