Skip to content

[$250] Refactor shareTrackedExpense to use a parameter object #54466

Closed

Description

@neil-marcellini

As part of the tracking issue, and as advised in its description, refactor shareTrackedExpense to use a parameter object.

cc @ChavdaSachin

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit
  • Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021871214955675002445
  • Upwork Job ID: 1871214955675002445
  • Last Price Increase: 2024-12-23
Issue OwnerCurrent Issue Owner: @eVoloshchak

Activity

  1. ChavdaSachin commented on Dec 23, 2024

    @ChavdaSachin
    Contributor

    Proposal

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

    Refactor

    What is the root cause of that problem?

    NA

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

    Refactor IOU.shareTrackedExpense function.
    Minimize Input fields and cluster input params in sensible sub-objects.

    What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

    No Changes.

    What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

    Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

  2. added
    BugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.
    ExternalAdded to denote the issue can be worked on by a contributor
    on Dec 23, 2024
  3. changed the title [-]Refactor shareTrackedExpense to use a parameter object[/-] [+][$250] Refactor shareTrackedExpense to use a parameter object[/+] on Dec 23, 2024
  4. melvin-bot commented on Dec 23, 2024

    @melvin-bot
  5. melvin-bot commented on Dec 23, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    Triggered auto assignment to @MitchExpensify (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.

  6. added
    Help WantedApply this label when an issue is open to proposals by contributors
    on Dec 23, 2024
  7. melvin-bot commented on Dec 23, 2024

    @melvin-bot

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

  8. removed
    Help WantedApply this label when an issue is open to proposals by contributors
    on Dec 23, 2024
  9. melvin-bot commented on Dec 27, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    @eVoloshchak, @neil-marcellini, @MitchExpensify, @ChavdaSachin Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

  10. 15 remaining items

  11. ChavdaSachin commented on Jan 30, 2025

    @ChavdaSachin
    Contributor

    @neil-marcellini default IDs are already implemented Here, we are free to close this issue as soon as 7 days regresion period is over for this PR.

  12. ChavdaSachin commented on Feb 3, 2025

    @ChavdaSachin
    Contributor

    @neil-marcellini could you please send upwork offers and mark this GH as pending for payment.
    check my previous comment.

  13. MitchExpensify commented on Feb 3, 2025

    @MitchExpensify
    Contributor

    @ChavdaSachin It's my role to make sure the Upwork offers are sent. Has the PR hit production yet? The offers should go out automatically once it has

  14. ChavdaSachin commented on Feb 4, 2025

    @ChavdaSachin
    Contributor

    Pr did hit production 7 days back

  15. MitchExpensify commented on Feb 4, 2025

    @MitchExpensify
    Contributor

    BugZero Checklist:

    • [Contributor] Classify the bug:
    Bug classification

    Source of bug:

    • 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
    • 1b. Mistake during implementation
    • 1c. Backend bug
    • 1z. Other:

    Where bug was reported:

    • 2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
    • 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
    • 2d. Reported on a PR
    • 2z. Other:

    Who reported the bug:

    • 3a. Expensify user
    • 3b. Expensify employee
    • 3c. Contributor
    • 3d. QA
    • 3z. Other:
    • [Contributor] 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:

    • [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source 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:

    • [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

    Regression Test Proposal Template
    • [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

      Link to issue:

    Regression Test Proposal

    Precondition:

    Test:

    Do we agree 👍 or 👎

  16. MitchExpensify commented on Feb 4, 2025

    @MitchExpensify
    Contributor

    Payment summary:

  17. MitchExpensify commented on Feb 4, 2025

    @MitchExpensify
    Contributor
  18. ChavdaSachin commented on Feb 5, 2025

    @ChavdaSachin
    Contributor

    Accepted

  19. MitchExpensify commented on Feb 5, 2025

    @MitchExpensify
    Contributor

    Paid, thanks!

  20. eVoloshchak commented on Feb 19, 2025

    @eVoloshchak
    Contributor

    BugZero Checklist in #54466 (comment)

    Classify the bug

    This isn't a bug, but rather a code improvement, not sure if this classification applies here

    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.

    Same as above, not a bug, there is no offending PR
    No additional discussion in Slack or regression test are needed either

    @eVoloshchak Reviewer - do you require payment on New Dot or Upwork?

    I'll request through NewDot

  21. JmillsExpensify commented on Mar 3, 2025

    @JmillsExpensify
    Contributor

    $250 approved for @eVoloshchak

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

BugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.ExternalAdded to denote the issue can be worked on by a contributorMonthlyKSv2

Type

No type

Projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions