Skip to content

[HOLD for payment 2024-04-05] [$500] [MEDIUM] Expensify Cards: Wrong report header for the money spent #36186

Closed

Description

@m-natarajan

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:
Reproducible in staging?: needs reproduction (card expense)
Reproducible in production?:
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @coleaeason
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1707427890816659

Action Performed:

  1. User A spends using the card
  2. Submits the bill to B
  3. Check the report header as user A

Expected Result:

User A spent $x.xx should appear

Actual Result:

User B spent $x.xx appears

Workaround:

unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence
Screenshot 2024-02-08 at 1 30 54 PM

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit
  • Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~016517b2a5bd47bbcb
  • Upwork Job ID: 1762448288159342592
  • Last Price Increase: 2024-02-27
  • Automatic offers:
    • aimane-chnaif | Reviewer | 0
    • mollfpr | Contributor | 0

Activity

  1. added
    BugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.
    on Feb 8, 2024
  2. melvin-bot commented on Feb 8, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    Triggered auto assignment to @CortneyOfstad (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

  3. added
    Help WantedApply this label when an issue is open to proposals by contributors
    and removed
    Help WantedApply this label when an issue is open to proposals by contributors
    on Feb 9, 2024
  4. CortneyOfstad commented on Feb 9, 2024

    @CortneyOfstad
    Contributor

    Clarifying which wave here

  5. grgia commented on Feb 9, 2024

    @grgia
    Contributor
  6. grgia commented on Feb 9, 2024

    @grgia
    Contributor

    maybe related to #35529 cc @mollfpr

  7. mollfpr commented on Feb 9, 2024

    @mollfpr
    Contributor

    Looking 👀

  8. self-assigned this
    on Feb 9, 2024
  9. CortneyOfstad commented on Feb 9, 2024

    @CortneyOfstad
    Contributor

    Wahoo! Thanks @grgia!

  10. grgia commented on Feb 9, 2024

    @grgia
    Contributor
  11. 86 remaining items

  12. melvin-bot commented on Mar 29, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

  13. melvin-bot commented on Mar 29, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.57-5 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 2024-04-05. 🎊

    For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

  14. melvin-bot commented on Mar 29, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    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:

    • [@mollfpr] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
    • [@mollfpr] 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:
    • [@mollfpr] 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:
    • [@mollfpr] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
    • [@mollfpr] 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.
    • [@CortneyOfstad] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:
  15. melvin-bot commented on Apr 3, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    ⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

    If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

    If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

    If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

  16. CortneyOfstad commented on Apr 3, 2024

    @CortneyOfstad
    Contributor

    @mollfpr Can you complete the checklist before EOD tomorrow? Thanks!

  17. CortneyOfstad commented on Apr 5, 2024

    @CortneyOfstad
    Contributor

    @mollfpr bump on the checklist 👍

  18. CortneyOfstad commented on Apr 5, 2024

    @CortneyOfstad
    Contributor

    Payment Summary

    @mollfpr to be paid $500 via NewDot
    @aimane-chnaif paid $500 via Upwork

  19. mollfpr commented on Apr 5, 2024

    @mollfpr
    Contributor

    Sorry for the delay @CortneyOfstad

    [@mollfpr] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
    [@mollfpr] 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:

    Not fully regression from #35529 but we do some improvement and cover another case to show correct verb.

    [@mollfpr] 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:

    The regression step should be enough.

    [@mollfpr] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
    [@mollfpr] 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.

    1. Log in to your account with the Expensify Card transaction (tester@applausecard.expensifail.com)
    2. Go to the workspace chat with the transaction (https://staging.new.expensify.com/r/4612388815642526. If the transaction is settled, please create another Expensify Card transaction)
    3. Verify the text on 3 places below correctly showing <requestor's name> spent
      • Alternate text on LHN
      • Report preview
      • Money report preview header
    4. 👍 or 👎
  20. mollfpr commented on Apr 5, 2024

    @mollfpr
    Contributor

    @CortneyOfstad The PR I worked for this issue has a regression but I have fixed it #39208

  21. CortneyOfstad commented on Apr 5, 2024

    @CortneyOfstad
    Contributor

    @mollfpr I don't see a regression listed. Only that it was merged without testing, which @Gonals handled. We should be good 👍

    I think the regression test looks good — @grgia any changes you would like to see made (if any)?

  22. JmillsExpensify commented on Apr 8, 2024

    @JmillsExpensify
    Contributor

    $500 approved for @mollfpr

  23. CortneyOfstad commented on Apr 8, 2024

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

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

Awaiting PaymentAuto-added when associated PR is deployed to productionBugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.EngineeringExternalAdded to denote the issue can be worked on by a contributorWeeklyKSv2

Type

No type

Projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions