Move RBR to workspace chats instead of transaction threads by iwiznia · Pull Request #51893 · Expensify/App

iwiznia · 2024-11-01T18:44:36Z

~~Held on https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/44293~~

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/433103

Tests

Have a report with violations
Check the RBR is only shown:
- In the workspace chat
- In the report preview in the workspace chat
- In the expense preview in the workspace chat for reports with only one expense
- In the expense preview of the report for reports with more than one expense
- In the expense itself
Check that a receipt with only modified date/amount violation is not shown with a RBR in the LHN, but it does show in the expense page when the report is in open state
Check that a receipt with only modified date/amount violation is shown with a RBR in in the report/expense page when the report is in submitted state

Offline tests

No

QA Steps

Same as tests

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

allgandalf · 2024-11-01T20:00:16Z

+    // - Belong to the same workspace
+    // And if any have a violation, then it should have a RBR
+    const allReports = Object.values(ReportConnection.getAllReports() ?? {});
+    const potentialReports = allReports.filter((r: Report) => r?.ownerAccountID === currentUserAccountID && r?.stateNum <= 1 && r?.policyID === report.policyID);


error must be for these lines

…s not showInReview

iwiznia · 2024-11-05T16:15:27Z

            });
            expect(reason).toBe('debug.reasonVisibleInLHN.pinnedByUser');
        });
-        it('returns correct reason when report has IOU violations', async () => {


Deleted this since it seems to me it's testing the same thing as this other test

What's the harm in leaving it? That sounds better if it's possible for there to be a case that this catches that the other test doesn't

Why have 2 tests that do the same? It's confusing, useless and a waste of time to have to update it now (and in the future whenever this changes)

Cause I got the impression that we think they're identical, but not 100% sure. If that's the case, I think it's better to leave it, but NAB

melvin-bot · 2024-11-05T18:47:18Z

@ 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]

iwiznia · 2024-11-05T19:12:41Z

Oh I also need to update a regression test: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C9YU7BX5M/p1730833945360329

pecanoro · 2024-11-06T19:32:55Z

@iwiznia Should we review or wait? I am a little confused

iwiznia · 2024-11-06T19:39:52Z

Review! What was confusing?

pecanoro · 2024-11-07T14:31:15Z

@iwiznia You mentioned something about regression tests so I wasn't sure if you wanted to add more tests to the PR

iwiznia · 2024-11-07T14:38:02Z

@iwiznia You mentioned something about regression tests so I wasn't sure if you wanted to add more tests to the PR

Yes, if you follow the link, we have a plan to update the regression tests when this is merged, but that update is outside of this PR code.

cead22

Thanks for taking this on! I think one of the most important parts of this PR should be to update the regression tests we have for violations to make sure the steps that used to check for RBRs on the transaction threads are updated to check the workspace chat.

That way we can have Applause run the full suite of violation tests as part of this PR and be confident we're not going to push bugs

cead22 · 2024-11-07T18:27:14Z

            });
            expect(reason).toBe('debug.reasonVisibleInLHN.pinnedByUser');
        });
-        it('returns correct reason when report has IOU violations', async () => {


What's the harm in leaving it? That sounds better if it's possible for there to be a case that this catches that the other test doesn't

cead22 · 2024-11-07T18:30:18Z

    data?: TransactionViolationData;
+
+    /** Indicates if this violation should be shown in review */
+    showInReview?: boolean;


Does this need to be optional?

Yes, because I am not sending it from PHP when it is not true

Suggested change

showInReview?: boolean;

showInReview: boolean | undefined;

This should be required to be set (and still allow for undefined). This is needed so we create the correct optimistic data. Not doing so led to a regression #54510

However, now we need to know which violations has showInReview=true. Can you please provide a list?

Why would this need to be set for optimistic actions to work? 😕

However, now we need to know which violations has showInReview=true. Can you please provide a list?

I don't think there's a list, there's a bunch of logic controlling this property's value.

Why would this need to be set for optimistic actions to work?

If we don't then expenses created offline that violate policy rules won't have the red dot set on their previews. This is due to this logic

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview/MoneyRequestPreviewContent.tsx

Line 120 in ad99c20

const hasViolations = TransactionUtils.hasViolation(transaction?.transactionID ?? '-1', transactionViolations, true);

that only take into account violations with showInReview=true

Ah ok, so let's add that property to the optimistic actions (assuming the property will be removed when the data from the server is returned), but no need to mark this prop as required

The problem with not making this required is that the bug could resurface (one could simply forget to add the field). Do you think we shouldn't optimize for this case?

Do you think it actually prevents bugs? Allowing undefined gives the same signal to code authors as allowing it to not be passed, no?

I see your point. Forcing the field to be set can reduce the occurrence of such bugs as you will get a chance to put in the correct value but it won't 100% prevent the bug.

We will keep the types untouched.

cead22 · 2024-11-07T18:45:07Z

-        (violation: TransactionViolation) => violation.type === CONST.VIOLATION_TYPES.WARNING,
-    );
+function hasWarningTypeViolation(transactionID: string, transactionViolations: OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]>, showInReview?: boolean | null): boolean {
+    const warningTypeViolations =


NAB but break this down to make it more readable

Like how? I had it formatted more readable but then the styler changed it to this

Putting transactionViolations?.[ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS + transactionID] in a variable

Did that, not sure if it makes it any better though 🤷

cead22 · 2024-11-07T18:46:22Z

-    const warningTypeViolations = transactionViolations?.[ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS + transactionID]?.filter(
-        (violation: TransactionViolation) => violation.type === CONST.VIOLATION_TYPES.WARNING,
-    );
+function hasWarningTypeViolation(transactionID: string, transactionViolations: OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]>, showInReview?: boolean | null): boolean {
