[HOLD for payment 2024-07-10] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-02] [$250] Scan - "Unhold" option appears in report details page of scanning expense

[lanitochka17]

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: 9.0.1-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat
3. Submit two scan expenses
4. Go to transaction thread of either one of the scan expenses
5. Click on the chat header

Expected Result:

"Unhold" option should not appear in report details page of scanning expense

Actual Result:

"Unhold" option appears in report details page of scanning expense

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

Bug6521355_1719047083743.unhold.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0183882a32ebd33716
• Upwork Job ID: 1805164343050042330
• Last Price Increase: 2024-06-24

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @hoangzinh

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @Beamanator (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[lanitochka17]

@Beamanator 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

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave-collect - Release 1

[Krishna2323]

Proposal

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

Scan - "Unhold" option appears in report details page of scanning expense

What is the root cause of that problem?

• We use shouldShowHoldAction const to add hold/unhold action, the shouldShowHoldAction doesn't have a check for scanning request.
  

  App/src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

  Line 447 in 425804a

  const shouldShowHoldAction = caseID !== CASES.MONEY_REPORT && !isSettled && !isApproved && !isDeletedParentAction && !ReportUtils.isArchivedRoom(parentReport);

• When adding hold/unhold action we use isExpenseReport && shouldShowHoldAction check and when canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest is false, we add unhold action.
  

  App/src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

  Lines 459 to 461 in 425804a

  	if (isExpenseReport && shouldShowHoldAction) {
  	result.push(PromotedActions.hold({isTextHold: canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest, reportAction: parentReportAction}));
  	}

  
  

  App/src/components/PromotedActionsBar.tsx

  Lines 64 to 72 in 425804a

  	hold: ({isTextHold, reportAction}) => ({
  	key: CONST.PROMOTED_ACTIONS.HOLD,
  	icon: Expensicons.Stopwatch,
  	text: Localize.translateLocal(`iou.${isTextHold ? 'hold' : 'unhold'}`),
  	onSelected: () => {
  	Navigation.dismissModal();
  	ReportUtils.changeMoneyRequestHoldStatus(reportAction);
  	},
  	}),

• This is wrong because first we don't check for scanning state and then the unhold action is added just because the hold action is false.

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

When adding hold/unhold action, we should make sure that canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest or canHoldUnholdReportAction.canUnholdRequest is true. This way hold action will be only added when canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest is true and unhold will be only added when canHoldUnholdReportAction.canUnholdRequest is true. canHoldUnholdReportAction.canUnholdRequest will be only true when request is already on hold.

App/src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

Lines 459 to 461 in 425804a

	if (isExpenseReport && shouldShowHoldAction) {
	result.push(PromotedActions.hold({isTextHold: canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest, reportAction: parentReportAction}));
	}

if (isExpenseReport && shouldShowHoldAction && (canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest || canHoldUnholdReportAction.canUnholdRequest)) {
    result.push(PromotedActions.hold({isTextHold: canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest, reportAction: parentReportAction}));
}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can get the transaction from onyx and use TransactionUtils to determine if the receipt is being scanned and add the check to shouldShowHoldAction or at the if check which adds the action.

const isScanning = TransactionUtils.hasReceipt(transaction) && TransactionUtils.isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction);

Result

can_hold_unhold_issue.mp4

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0183882a32ebd33716

[melvin-bot]

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

[mountiny]

@Krishna2323 Are you available to raise the PR for this quickly?

[Krishna2323]

@mountiny, yes.

[Beamanator]

Hey @mountiny i'm planning to test this out & figure out the PR that caused the regression (probably #43251)

[mountiny]

@Beamanator thanks!

[Beamanator]

@Krishna2323 I don't really like adding (canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest || canHoldUnholdReportAction.canUnholdRequest) to the if condition before result.push(PromotedActions.hold, mainly because I feel like .canHoldRequest and .canUnholdRequest should always relate to shouldShowHoldAction - a.k.a. why not add (canHoldUnholdReportAction.canHoldRequest || canHoldUnholdReportAction.canUnholdRequest) into the calculation of shouldShowHoldAction?

I see that isScanning is already used in ReportUtils.canHoldUnholdReportAction so hopefully this is all we need?

[Krishna2323]

@Beamanator, yeah we can do that when calculating shouldShowHoldAction, it will work.

[Beamanator]

I ping'd @grgia and @cdOut in internal slack thread (here) so will wait for their thoughts

[Beamanator]

Ok @cdOut will make the PR to fix, @Krishna2323 we should still pay you something for finding the correct root cause & providing the best solution (assuming we end up going with your solution in the end, which i think we will)

[Beamanator]

Working well in staging!! @sonialiap i believe we're ready for payment!

@Krishna2323 provided the correct regression which helped @cdOut complete the PR (since it was a regression)

Also @hoangzinh was C+ for the PR 👍

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.1-19 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Scan - "Unhold" option appears in report details page of scanning expense #44243

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-02. 🎊

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

• @hoangzinh requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

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

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @hoangzinh paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@sonialiap)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1805164343050042330/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[sonialiap]

Payment summary
@hoangzinh $250 - offer sent in Upwork - paid ✔️
@Krishna2323 $250 - offer sent in Upwork - paid ✔️

[hoangzinh]

Accepted. thanks @sonialiap

[Krishna2323]

@sonialiap, I'm also eligible for payment. Can you pls check this #44195 (comment)? Thanks

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.3-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Scan - "Unhold" option appears in report details page of scanning expense #44243

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-10. 🎊

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

• @hoangzinh requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

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

[sonialiap]

@Krishna2323 sorry I missed that! Offer sent

[Krishna2323]

@sonialiap, offer accepted.

[sonialiap]

@hoangzinh please complete the checklist

[hoangzinh]

It's a DB issue, we already found the offending PR here #44195 (comment), therefore I think we don't need a checklist for this issue anymore

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @hoangzinh paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@sonialiap)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1805164343050042330/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct