[HOLD for payment 2024-03-07] [$500] [MEDIUM] Scan - Merchant message disappears after deleting receipt and reappears after adding receipt

[lanitochka17]

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: 1.4.30-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
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: Applause - Internal Team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Go to workspace chat
2. Create a scan request
3. While the scanning is ongoing, navigate to the request details page and manually enter amount
4. Click on the receipt and delete it
5. Add a receipt

Expected Result:

Since merchant is a requirement for workspace request, the merchant requirement message will remain until a merchant is entered

Actual Result:

After deleting the receipt while merchant is empty, the merchant message disappears. After adding a receipt, the message reappears

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

Bug6352447_1706038465358.20240123_234633.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f34025c8418af8d7
• Upwork Job ID: 1749884467102949376
• Last Price Increase: 2024-01-23
• Automatic offers:
• c3024 | Reviewer | 28142586
• dukenv0307 | Contributor | 28142587

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f34025c8418af8d7

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @c3024 (External)

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave6.
CC @greg-schroeder

[Nodebrute]

Proposal

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

Merchant error message disappeared even it's a policy chat

What is the root cause of that problem?

The problem starts here

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

Lines 222 to 226 in 872eb17

	let hasErrors = false;
	if (hasReceipt) {
	receiptURIs = ReceiptUtils.getThumbnailAndImageURIs(transaction);
	hasErrors = canEdit && TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);
	}

hasErrors is true when we have required empty fields after scanning. When we delete a receipt, hasReceipt becomes false, indicating that the corresponding hasErrors will also be false, and no error will be displayed.

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

Line 317 in 872eb17

error={hasErrors && isPolicyExpenseChat && isEmptyMerchant ? translate('common.error.enterMerchant') : ''}

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

We can change this to

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

Line 317 in 872eb17

error={hasErrors && isPolicyExpenseChat && isEmptyMerchant ? translate('common.error.enterMerchant') : ''}

error={!TransactionUtils.isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && isPolicyExpenseChat && isEmptyMerchant ? translate('common.error.enterMerchant') : ''}

The error will be displayed only when we don't have a receipt being scanned, and it is a policy expense chat and merchant is empty.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can add another check !TransactionUtils.isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) here

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

Line 317 in 872eb17

error={hasErrors && isPolicyExpenseChat && isEmptyMerchant ? translate('common.error.enterMerchant') : ''}

[dukenv0307]

Proposal

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

• Scan - Merchant message disappears after deleting receipt and reappears after adding receipt

What is the root cause of that problem?

• Here is the condition that we use to display the merchant error. In this bug, hasErrors field is false because we just set it to true in:
  

  App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

  Lines 223 to 226 in 872eb17

  	if (hasReceipt) {
  	receiptURIs = ReceiptUtils.getThumbnailAndImageURIs(transaction);
  	hasErrors = canEdit && TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);
  	}

• When we delete the receipt, the hasReceipt is false, that leads to the above logic is not called

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

• We need to have a way to differentiate manual requests with an attached receipt from a smartscan request once the server returns the response.
• Then, just need to update:
  

  App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

  Lines 222 to 226 in 872eb17

  	let hasErrors = false;
  	if (hasReceipt) {
  	receiptURIs = ReceiptUtils.getThumbnailAndImageURIs(transaction);
  	hasErrors = canEdit && TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);
  	}

  
  to:

    let hasErrors = false
    if (hasReceipt) {
        receiptURIs = ReceiptUtils.getThumbnailAndImageURIs(transaction);
    }
    if(isScanRequest){
        hasErrors = canEdit && TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);
    }

• In the above, isScanRequest can be returned from BE side

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

• Also, we just need to update:
  

  App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

  Lines 222 to 226 in 872eb17

  	let hasErrors = false;
  	if (hasReceipt) {
  	receiptURIs = ReceiptUtils.getThumbnailAndImageURIs(transaction);
  	hasErrors = canEdit && TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);
  	}

  
  to:

    let hasErrors = false
    if (hasReceipt) {
        receiptURIs = ReceiptUtils.getThumbnailAndImageURIs(transaction);
    }
    hasErrors = canEdit && TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);

[dukenv0307]

@c3024 What do you think about my proposal here?

[c3024]

I'll update in a few hours. Thanks for the bump.

[c3024]

We don't show RBR and error for the required fields when they are empty only while the receipt is scanned. The empty field check is already being done so checking whether the receipt is scanned as suggested by @Nodebrute is I think the correct way to fix this. However, this change should be done for all required fields as well as the brick indicator field.

In cases when there is no receipt, setting hasErrors to true purely based on canEdit as suggested by @dukenv0307 gives the meaning of having errors just because the request is editable which is inconsistent with the variable name hasErrors. Further, with violations enabled setting hasErrors to true causes a regression showing a danger border for the ReceiptEmptyState for simple manual money requests.

So, the proposal here by @Nodebrute looks good to me.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ Reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @Julesssss, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[dukenv0307]

• @c3024 The errors just need to be displayed in case of smartscan, right? (see PR).

• Currently, we do not have a way to differentiate manual requests with an attached receipt from a smartscan request once the server returns the response. Instead, we are using hasReceipt to check, but it is not correctly.

• So my suggestion is that we need to add a variable to check this in BE as we `ve proposed here, then use it as I mentioned in my updated proposal. What do you think?

[kadiealexander]

@Julesssss bump!

[dukenv0307]

@c3024 Also, the solution here will lead to regression #34195

[Julesssss]

I was sick, but it looks like we should now discuss @dukenv0307's points before committing to the proposal.

@c3024:

So my suggestion is that we need to add a variable to check this in BE as we `ve proposed here, then use it as I mentioned in my #34997 (comment). What do you think?

[c3024]

1. There is no scope of the mandatory fields (amount, merchant and created) missing errors in case of manual requests (with receipt added). Because, in manual request flow the user cannot make a request unless they fill all these mandatory fields.

2. Where as in case of a scan request flow, the user uploads a picture and till the smartscan is complete or till the user overrides it with filling fields, there are no errors for missing mandatory fields. Only when the user fills a field (either amount or merchant) before the scanning is complete does the error appear.

3. My understanding is that the request type is fixed based on the tab (either scan or manual). It does not matter if a receipt is added later to a manual request or the receipt is deleted for a scan request. Whatever the request type is fixed at the time of selection of tab at the making of request remains.

4. So, while I agree that hasReceipt does not convey the correct meaning, the case where one of the mandatory fields missing for a manual request (with a receipt added later) does not arise for the reason specified in (1).

This updating value of hasErrors here

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

Line 226 in 49fbaa0

hasErrors = canEdit && TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction);

need not be in hasReceipt check (no harm in being there as well) because the hasMissingSmartScanFields checks if the transaction has receipt here.

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.ts

Line 439 in 49fbaa0

return Boolean(transaction && hasReceipt(transaction) && !isDistanceRequest(transaction) && !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && areRequiredFieldsEmpty(transaction));

So, while I agree that hasReceipt does not clearly convey whether the request is a scan or a manual request (with receipt added), I think that differentiation is not required right now.

Also, I don't think the suggested change by @Nodebrute causes this regression as suggested.

So, I think we can go with the proposal by @Nodebrute

Please correct me if I am wrong.

cc: @dukenv0307 @Julesssss

[melvin-bot]

📣 @dukenv0307 🎉 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 📖

[dukenv0307]

@c3024 PR #35871 is ready to review

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @Julesssss, @kadiealexander, @c3024, @dukenv0307 eroding to Monthly issue.

P.S. Is everyone reading this sure this is really a near-term priority? Be brave: if you disagree, go ahead and close it out. If someone disagrees, they'll reopen it, and if they don't: one less thing to do!

[dukenv0307]

The PR is merged.

[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 1.4.45-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix error message disappear #35871

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-03-07. 🎊

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

• @c3024 requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @dukenv0307 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:

• [@c3024] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@c3024] 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:
• [@c3024] 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:
• [@c3024] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@c3024] 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.
• [@kadiealexander] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[c3024]

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:

• [@c3024] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Display Smartscan errors #26155
• [@c3024] 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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/26155/files#r1509172991
• [@c3024] 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: This happens only when the user enters amount before the scan is complete and then removes the receipt. This is an uncommon case and this is difficult to be identified. So, no discussion has been started.
• [@c3024] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Yes
• [@c3024] 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.

Regression Test Proposal

1. Go to workspace chat
2. Create a scan request
3. While the scanning is ongoing, navigate to the request details page and manually enter amount leaving Merchant field empty
4. Verify that there is an error and RBR at the Merchant field
5. Click on the receipt and delete it
6. Verify that the error and RBR stay at the 'Merchant' field
7. Add a receipt
8. Verify that the error and RBR stay at the 'Merchant' field

👍 or 👎

[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.

[s77rt]

Ignore ^

[kadiealexander]

Payouts due:

• Contributor: $500 @dukenv0307
• Contributor+: $500 @c3024

Upwork job is here.

[kadiealexander]

Issue for adding steps to Testrail: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/376654