[No QA] IOURequestStepScan clean-up, Phase 1: Add comprehensive test coverage for multi-scan receipt handling v2 - #80821
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds/updates UI-level test coverage intended to protect the IOURequestStepScan multi-scan receipt flow during the broader cleanup work for #79929.
Changes:
- Reworks
tests/ui/IOURequestStepScanTest.tsxto renderIOURequestStepScanand simulate receipt selection via a mockeduseFilesValidationhook. - Adds assertions aimed at ensuring multi-scan flows don’t clear unrelated draft transactions.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. More of your lovely PRs please. ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubCodex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback". |
|
Will check this tomorrow.. |
|
@samranahm I think we should add this test too 
Even though this isn't true. |
|
Please check all copilot comments |
| const REPORT_ID = '1'; | ||
| const POLICY_ID = 'policy-1'; | ||
| const TRANSACTION_ID_1 = '101'; | ||
| const TRANSACTION_ID_2 = '102'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer this kind of variable to be local to the test cases.
|
Hmm, I think the unit test still doesn't really test #79324. I reverted the change, and the test still passes. |
| } as unknown as PlatformStackScreenProps<MoneyRequestNavigatorParamList, typeof SCREENS.MONEY_REQUEST.STEP_SCAN>['route'] | ||
| } | ||
| navigation={{} as never} | ||
| isMultiScanEnabled |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When we want to test #79324, we need to replicate the condition.
We replace the receipt in an edit receipt page, where both isMultiScanEnabled and isStartingScan are false.
(you can just omit the props)
(this will now fail the test if we revert the fix)
|
For the 2nd test case App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.native.tsx Lines 396 to 398 in bb2b54e (we will need to assert that |
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| afterEach(async () => { | ||
| removeDraftTransactionsSpy.mockRestore(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We initialize the spy in beforeEach, then reset the mock in afterEach, just to be reinitialized again in beforeEach.
Instead, let's initialize the spy in beforeAll and remove the mock restore here. We already have jest.clearAllMocks in beforeEach. (I think we should call jest.clearAllMocks in afterEach instead though)
| } as Report; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function getOnyxDraft(transactionID: string): Promise<OnyxEntry<Transaction>> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NAB: Let's rename this to getTransactionsDraftOnyx()
|
Looking into this, will fix all above comments shortly. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. |
|
@bernhardoj All comments have been addressed. Please take another look. |
| expect(TransactionUtils.shouldReuseInitialTransaction(transactionWithReceiptSource, true, 0, true, [initialTransaction])).toBe(false); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('returns false when initialTransaction is null', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's remove this one. We already had this one.
App/tests/unit/TransactionUtilsTest.ts
Lines 1488 to 1490 in 4340f91
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, my bad, looks like all these tests suggested by Claude already exists, so let's revert this tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, they already exist, removing them now.
| const TRANSACTION_ID_1 = '101'; | ||
| const TRANSACTION_ID_2 = '102'; | ||
| jest.mock('@libs/actions/TransactionEdit', () => ({ | ||
| removeDraftTransactions: jest.fn(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, why do we mock this now? We need the original implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will fix this ASAP.
|
Note when updating the test: App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.native.tsx Lines 396 to 398 in 80dc863 For test case 1, please remove if (!isMultiScanEnabled) {
removeDraftTransactions(true);
}For test case 2, remove the whole removeDraftTransactions(true)I know you most likely use AI to generate the test, which is great and totally fine, but please review it and make sure the test really does its job. |
|
Btw, do we really need to mock |
|
Thanks @bernhardoj for the attention to detail, appreciate it 🙌. Please take another look. |
|
Please check this too, then we are done |
|
On it. |
|
Thanks @bernhardoj for the continued support. Could you please complete the reviewer checklist? |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
roryabraham
left a comment
roryabraham
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 Issuessection 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
Testssection - I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the
QA stepssection - 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 verified the steps for local testing are in the
- 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
- MacOS: Desktop
- 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 there are no new alerts related to the
canBeMissingparam foruseOnyx - I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
toggleReportand notonIconClick). - 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 shown in the product is localized by adding it to
src/languages/*files and using the translation method - I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- 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)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in
STYLE.md) were followed
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
- 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 usingAvatarhave been tested & I retested again) - I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
- I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
- If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a
/** comment above it */ - The file is named correctly
- 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
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to
thisproperly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}the methodthis.submitshould be bound tothisin the constructor) - Any internal methods bound to
thisare necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);ifthis.submitis never passed to a component event handler likeonClick) - All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- 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 any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
- 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
Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris 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
Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso the design team can review the changes.
- If a new page is added, I verified it's using the
ScrollViewcomponent to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page. - 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
mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps. - 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
MacOS: Desktop
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.13-1 🚀
|
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.3.15-0 🚀
|
|
🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.15-10 🚀
|
Explanation of Change
Adding automated test coverage.
Fixed Issues
(partial) #79929
Tests
No manual tests. Automated tests only.
Offline tests
None.
QA Steps
No QA.
PR Author Checklist
### Fixed Issuessection aboveTestssectionOffline stepssectionQA stepssectioncanBeMissingparam foruseOnyxtoggleReportand notonIconClick)src/languages/*files and using the translation methodSTYLE.md) were followedAvatar, I verified the components usingAvatarare working as expected)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))npm run compress-svg)Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases)Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso the design team can review the changes.ScrollViewcomponent to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps.Screenshots/Videos
Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari