Adjust condition to access submit button by cretadn22 · Pull Request #51012 · Expensify/App

cretadn22 · 2024-10-17T12:51:53Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #48778
PROPOSAL: #48778 (comment)

Tests

QA steps section

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Create a workspace
Invite a submitter and 2 approvers (both NON-ADMINS)
Enable approvals setting Submitter -> submitsTo approver 1 -> forwardsTo approver 2
Enable Delay submissions
Create an expense as the submitter
As the approver 1, submit & approve the report
As the approver 2, navigate to the submitter's workspace chat
See that the second-level+ non-admin approver should NOT see the 'submit' button.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-10-20.at.13.32.11.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-10-19.at.00.16.11.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-10-17T12:51:58Z

@ikevin127 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]

ikevin127 · 2024-10-17T20:57:21Z

@cretadn22 ⚠️ Looks like you're missing the content for the following checkbox:

I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms

♻️ I will be moving forward with the PR Reviewer Checklist but won't be able to 🟢 Approve until the checked checkboxes are actually completed.

ikevin127 · 2024-10-17T22:11:14Z

@cretadn22 ⚠️ The code looks clean, but I found the following issues while testing the functionality (see below).

Given the following workflow:

Once the submitter (John Krakauer) posts a new expense, this is how it looks on their side:

the first one I pressed the Submit button
the second one I did not Submit yet

This is how things look on the 1st Approver's side (K3vin Brian):

This is how things look on the 2nd Approver's side (kevin.bader96+2@gmail.com):

⚠️ The issues are as follows

NOTE: The pictures above and issues mentioned below are were reproduced on an existing workspace already setup and used before.

Only the submitter (John Krakauer) is able to actually Submit the expense, approver 1 and 2 while they both see the Submit button, if pressed -> they get BE error.
Once the submitter pressed Submit and submitted the expenses, 1st approver doesn't see any buttons on the expense and 2nd approver will see the Approve button.
Once the 2nd approver pressed Approve, the 1st approver will see the Approve button which allows them to approve as well.

What happens if we test exactly the same flow with exactly the same workflow member setup ?

The approver roles are reversed, meaning that in this case the 1st approver will see the Approve button once the submitter pressed Submit after they posted the expense.
If the 1st approver will press Approve on the first expense which was submitted by the submitter, then the Approve button will show up on the 2nd approver's side.
For the second expense on which the submitter did not press Submit yet, both approvers see the Submit button which should not be the case for the 2nd (as per this fix).
If 2nd approver will press the Submit button, they will get BE error, not being able to submit.
If 1st approver will press the Submit button, they are able to submit and now they will have the possibility to Approve.
If 1st approver will press Approve -> 2nd approver will be able to approve as well.

Summary

Looks like regardless of being on an already setup and previously used WS , or on a freshly setup WS with exactly the same workflow setup -> in both cases there are issues with the flow as described above.

ikevin127 · 2024-10-18T21:25:39Z

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- 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 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. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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
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)
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.js 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 this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- 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 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 a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
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: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

ikevin127 · 2024-10-18T21:31:36Z

@cretadn22 🟢 I retested the fix again today after the latest sync w/ main and the tests passes now:

after step (6.) in which 1st approver performes Submit and Approve on the expense, the 2nd approver will only see Approve (step 8.)

web.mov

⚠️ I noticed that you still did not add the screenshots / videos as asked in #51012 (comment), which is currently a blocker for this PR. Once that is done, I'll be able to 🟢 Approve and move forward with the PR 👍

cretadn22 · 2024-10-19T17:08:48Z

@ikevin127 I'm experiencing issues with the Android and IOS emulators after updating my MacOS. I'm working on fixing this problem and will upload all the videos soon.

cretadn22 · 2024-10-20T08:19:28Z

@ikevin127 I completed the author checklist

ikevin127

Thanks for completing the checklist. LGTM ✅

Beamanator

LGTM

melvin-bot · 2024-10-21T08:27:33Z

@Beamanator looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

Beamanator · 2024-10-21T08:28:04Z

Not emergency, all checks were passing :/

OSBotify · 2024-10-21T08:37:43Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

github-actions · 2024-10-22T04:48:54Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.0.52-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2024-10-23T16:26:21Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.0.52-5 🚀

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

ishpaul777 · 2025-02-06T20:46:41Z

+    const shouldShowSubmitButton =
+        !!moneyRequestReport &&
+        isDraft &&
+        reimbursableSpend !== 0 &&


coming from #55086 {BZ Checklist}, this might have expected at time of implementation, but we end up removing reimbursableSpend !== 0 and also adding few more cases see: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/55610/files#diff-9c07b44e092fd3d975806649be46d76b75a377c16e32ed86597b630a84c290d0 and https://app.slack.com/client/E047TPA624F/C02NK2DQWUX

cretadn22 added 3 commits October 10, 2024 10:46

adjust-condition-to-access-submit-button

bd6e142

update new main

9c37320

update new main

669f845

cretadn22 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 17, 2024 12:51

melvin-bot Bot requested review from ikevin127 and removed request for a team October 17, 2024 12:51

ikevin127 mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-10-30] [$250] 2nd-level+ Non-admin approver should NOT be able to Submit draft reports on behalf of their submitters #48778

Closed

ikevin127 approved these changes Oct 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from Beamanator October 20, 2024 12:11

Beamanator approved these changes Oct 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

Beamanator merged commit 1f3162c into Expensify:main Oct 21, 2024

melvin-bot Bot added the Emergency label Oct 21, 2024

Beamanator removed the Emergency label Oct 21, 2024

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-10-22 #51219

Closed

74 tasks done

ishpaul777 reviewed Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

Conversation

cretadn22 commented Oct 17, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 17, 2024

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Oct 17, 2024

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Oct 17, 2024

⚠️ The issues are as follows

What happens if we test exactly the same flow with exactly the same workflow member setup ?

Summary

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Oct 18, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Oct 18, 2024

Uh oh!

cretadn22 commented Oct 19, 2024

Uh oh!

cretadn22 commented Oct 20, 2024

Uh oh!

ikevin127 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Beamanator left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Oct 21, 2024

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Oct 21, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 21, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 22, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 23, 2024

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

cretadn22 commented Oct 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading