[HOLD for payment 2024-10-25] [$250] [Dupe detect] Not here page opens when opening distance receipt from another workspace

[IuliiaHerets]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.0.43-3
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Create two workspaces.
3. Submit a distance expense in the first workspace chat.
4. Submit the same distance expense in the second workspace chat.
5. Submit another expense to the second workspace chat (as we cannot review duplicates when there is only one expense).
6. Go to transaction thread of the second expense in Step 4.
7. Click Review duplicates.
8. Click on the second distance expense preview (to make Keep this one button appear).
9. Click browser back button.
10. Click Keep this one on the second expense preview.
11. Click on the receipt on the confirmation page.

Expected Result:

The receipt opens without issue.

Actual Result:

Not here page opens when opening distance receipt from another workspace in full screen.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6622310_1727885989783.20241003_001259.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021842274975898423185
• Upwork Job ID: 1842274975898423185
• Last Price Increase: 2024-10-04
• Automatic offers:
• rojiphil | Reviewer | 104346977
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 104346978

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @joekaufmanexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @joekaufmanexpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[IuliiaHerets]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave-control

[IuliiaHerets]

@joekaufmanexpensify FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Not here page opens when opening distance receipt from another workspace in full screen.

What is the root cause of that problem?

Here we are calculating shouldShowNotFoundPage based on moneyRequestReportID and transaction?.reportID and will show NotFoundPage when they are different

App/src/pages/TransactionReceiptPage.tsx

Line 62 in c3b4a65

const shouldShowNotFoundPage = isTrackExpenseReport || transaction?.reportID === CONST.REPORT.SPLIT_REPORTID ? !transaction : (moneyRequestReportID ?? '-1') !== transaction?.reportID;

But in case review duplicates with expsense in another workspace, it is no longer true because this transaction does not belong to the same report so moneyRequestReportID will calculate wrong

App/src/pages/TransactionReceiptPage.tsx

Line 58 in c3b4a65

const moneyRequestReportID = ReportUtils.isMoneyRequestReport(report) ? report?.reportID : report?.parentReportID;

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

1. We should add new route param like isFromReviewDuplicates for route TRANSACTION_RECEIPT here

    TRANSACTION_RECEIPT: {
        route: 'r/:reportID/transaction/:transactionID/receipt',
        getRoute: (reportID: string, transactionID: string, readonly = false, isFromReviewDuplicates = false) => `r/${reportID}/transaction/${transactionID}/receipt${readonly ? '?readonly=true' : ''}${isFromReviewDuplicates ? '?isFromReviewDuplicates=true' : ''}` as const,
    },

2. Use this param when calculating shouldShowNotFoundPage here

    const shouldShowNotFoundPage = isTrackExpenseReport || transaction?.reportID === CONST.REPORT.SPLIT_REPORTID || isFromReviewDuplicates ? !transaction : (moneyRequestReportID ?? '-1') !== transaction?.reportID;

3. We can pass isFromReviewDuplicates from Transaction Duplicate confirmation page here

App/src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/Confirmation.tsx

Lines 107 to 112 in c3b4a65

	<MoneyRequestView
	report={report}
	shouldShowAnimatedBackground={false}
	readonly
	updatedTransaction={transaction as OnyxEntry<Transaction>}
	/>

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[joekaufmanexpensify]

I can reproduce this, but not sure if dupe detection across multiple workspaces is supposed to be a thing.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Discussing

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Confirmed this is possible, but only for the submitter. Given the submitter can view the expense when resolving dupes, feels correct they should be able to view the receipt.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021842274975898423185

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @rojiphil (External)

[melvin-bot]

@rojiphil, @pecanoro, @joekaufmanexpensify Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@rojiphil could you review the above proposal?

[rojiphil]

@nkdengineer proposal LGTM i.e. using a new route param isFromReviewDuplicates to prevent shouldShowNotFoundPage from becoming true will help resolve this issue.
🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @pecanoro is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[pecanoro]

Assigning @nkdengineer to the issue!

[melvin-bot]

📣 @rojiphil 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

📣 @nkdengineer 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[joekaufmanexpensify]

PR in review

[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.

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.50-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: Not here page opens when opening distance receipt from another workspace #50546

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-10-25. 🎊

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

• @rojiphil requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @nkdengineer requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[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:

• [@rojiphil] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@rojiphil] 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:
• [@rojiphil] 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:
• [@rojiphil] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@rojiphil] 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.
• [@joekaufmanexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@nkdengineer @rojiphil was the regression notice above legit?

[rojiphil]

was the regression notice above legit?

Yes @joekaufmanexpensify. That is correct.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Got it. TY for confirming!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@rojiphil can you also handle the BZ checklist so we can process payment in a few days?

[rojiphil]

• [@rojiphil] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Offending PR
• [@rojiphil] 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: Added comment
• [@rojiphil] 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: Not Required. Existing checklist is good enough to capture such issues.
• [@rojiphil] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. : Yes. We can
• [@rojiphil] 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.

Steps:

1. Create two workspaces.
2. Submit a distance expense in the first workspace chat.
3. Submit the same distance expense in the second workspace chat.
4. Submit another expense to the second workspace chat (as we cannot review duplicates when there is only one expense).
5. Go to transaction thread of the second expense in Step 4.
6. Click Review duplicates.
7. Click on the second distance expense preview (to make Keep this one button appear).
8. Click on the receipt on the confirmation page.
9. Verify that: The receipt opens without issue.

[rojiphil]

can you also handle the BZ checklist so we can process payment in a few days?

@joekaufmanexpensify BZ Checklist is done.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Regression test issue is here.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Checklist is complete. All set to issue payment!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

We need to pay:

• @nkdengineer $125 for PR via Upwork (50% penalty for regression)
• @rojiphil $125 for C+ via Upwork (50% penalty for regression)

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@nkdengineer $125 sent and contract ended!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@rojiphil $125 sent and contract ended!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Upwork job closed.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

All set, thanks everyone!