[No QA] Add description comments to the receipt retry tests by rinej · Pull Request #103442 · Expensify/App

rinej · 2026-10-08T10:28:40Z

Explanation of Change

Follow-up to #102893

This adds description comments, to:

every test in tests/unit/ReceiptUploadRetryHandlerTest.ts, including the ones from
the two tests added to tests/actions/IOUTest/ReceiptTest.ts

One-line tests are split into setup, call and assertion so each section has its own comment. Test names and assertions are unchanged. No app code changes.

Fixed Issues

$ #102494
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Run npx jest tests/unit/ReceiptUploadRetryHandlerTest.ts tests/actions/IOUTest/ReceiptTest.ts
Verify all tests pass

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-08T10:29:50Z

Codex usage limits have been reached for code reviews. Please check with the admins of this repo to increase the limits by adding credits.
Credits must be used to enable repository wide code reviews.

melvin-bot · 2026-10-08T10:29:53Z

@brunovjk 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]

rinej · 2026-10-08T10:30:12Z

@mountiny here is the follow up PR with just tests comments description

brunovjk · 2026-10-08T12:56:23Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
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 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 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
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)
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately
- 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
- 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 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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If the PR adds or modifies the UI:
- I asked an AI agent to review the changes for accessibility issues and addressed its findings.
- I tested with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS) and verified all new/changed elements are reachable with a logical focus order.
- I verified all new/changed elements have meaningful accessible names and roles.
- I verified state changes are announced (e.g. checked/unchecked, expanded/collapsed, selected).
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
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: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

brunovjk · 2026-10-08T13:21:59Z

+        // When the retry payload is rebuilt from what the failure left in Onyx
+        const payload = buildRetryPayload(context, receiptFile);
+
+        // Then it keeps the transaction ID, so a re-send that already reached the server gets "Transaction already created" instead of a second expense


The test only verifies that the original transaction ID is preserved, but doesn't verify that the server returns "Transaction already created". Am I missing something?

Bad wording, the tests cover only our side, not the server. I reworded it and also adjusted 3 more similar examples

mountiny

Perfect. Thank you for following up.

OSBotify · 2026-10-09T20:50:25Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.5.7-0 🚀

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

test: add description comments to the receipt retry tests

93656d1

melvin-bot Bot assigned rinej Oct 8, 2026

rinej marked this pull request as ready for review October 8, 2026 10:29

rinej requested a review from a team as a code owner October 8, 2026 10:29

melvin-bot Bot requested review from brunovjk and removed request for a team October 8, 2026 10:29

rinej mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2026

Show Try again when replacing a receipt fails #102893

Merged

43 tasks done

brunovjk approved these changes Oct 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from mountiny October 8, 2026 13:12

brunovjk reviewed Oct 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

test: adjust test description

82ddce7

mountiny approved these changes Oct 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 680423c into Expensify:main Oct 9, 2026
30 of 32 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-10-09 #103653

Open

39 of 60 tasks

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

[No QA] Add description comments to the receipt retry tests - #103442

[No QA] Add description comments to the receipt retry tests#103442
mountiny merged 2 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
callstack-internal:tests-receipt-upload-retry-replace-receipt

rinej commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

rinej commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

brunovjk Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

rinej Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

mountiny left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

rinej commented Oct 8, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

rinej commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

brunovjk commented Oct 8, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

brunovjk Oct 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rinej Oct 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants