[HOLD for payment 2024-01-17] TU - Fix admin and approver editing request details on paid plan requests.

[trjExpensify]

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: v1.3.86-1
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: @RachCHopkins
Slack conversation: Internal ref

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: You need to complete the steps in this SO to have workspace chats created for a paid policy. On the policy set up an "advanced" approval workflow with employee submitting to a manager that is not an admin.

1. As a member create a request
2. Navigate to the expenseReport > request details > edit > amount
3. Observe that you can edit the amount
4. As an approver navigate to the expenseReport > request details > edit > amount
5. Observe that the field isn't disabled but you can't navigate to the /edit/amount page
6. As an admin navigate to the expenseReport > request details > edit > amount
7. Observe that the field isn't disabled but you can't navigate to the /edit/amount page

Expected Result:

When it comes to date and amount fields on a request:

1. A submitter should be able to edit up until the point the report has gone through the first level of approval. I.e open reports, and processing reports until they are approved by at least one person in the approval chain.
2. An approver should be able to edit up until the point that the report is final approved. i.e open and processing reports.
3. An admin should be able to edit up until the point that the report is final approved. I.e open and processing reports.

For merchant and description, the logic is as follows:

1. A submitter should be able to edit up until the point the report has gone through the first level of approval. I.e open reports, and processing reports until they are approved by at least one person in the approval chain.
2. An approver should be able to edit up until the point that the report is final approved. i.e open and processing reports.
3. An admin should be able to edit on all report states. I.e open, processing, approved, reimbursed reports.

Other fields on the request are being introduced with other waves (i.e categories in wave6, tax in wave9), and the logic for editing on those has been determined and/or implemented accordingly in-line with the above for merchant and description.

CC: @heyjennahay @JmillsExpensify

Actual Result:

Admins and Managers can't edit any of the request details right now. The fields appear editable but the redirect bounces to "edit/amount"

Workaround:

Can the user still use Expensify without this being fixed? Have you informed them of the workaround?

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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

0K94mmEHNW.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0104816b5fd6ba7fa8
• Upwork Job ID: 1714748088198160384
• Last Price Increase: 2023-10-18

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @youssef-lr is eligible for the Engineering assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @trjExpensify is eligible for the Bug assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0104816b5fd6ba7fa8

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor Plus for review of internal employee PR - @mananjadhav (Internal)

[trjExpensify]

@youssef-lr, you can link the PR here when you have it :)

[youssef-lr]

PR ready for review

[trjExpensify]

Ah, I think you linked the PR to the wrong issue? 😅 https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/326700

[melvin-bot]

@mananjadhav, @youssef-lr, @trjExpensify Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[trjExpensify]

Bump @youssef-lr on where this PR is at: #29914 (comment)

[youssef-lr]

Working on it today @trjExpensify

[JmillsExpensify]

Thanks for picking this up.

[melvin-bot]

@mananjadhav, @youssef-lr, @trjExpensify Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[youssef-lr]

Will do @trjExpensify. The PRs are in progress.

[trjExpensify]

Ah nice, @youssef-lr! Are they linked somewhere else?

[youssef-lr]

Not yet, will have them ready today @trjExpensify, App PR is done, working on Auth now!

[melvin-bot]

@mananjadhav @youssef-lr @trjExpensify this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to a solution? Let's make sure we're treating this as a top priority. Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[youssef-lr]

Last PR is merged.

[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]

⚠️ 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 1.4.23-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Add checks for editing APPROVED reports #33633

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-01-17. 🎊

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

• @c3024 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:

• [@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.
• [@trjExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @c3024 paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@trjExpensify)

• 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/1714748088198160384/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[trjExpensify]

👋 @c3024 checklist time!

[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: [TS Migration] Migrate 'ReportUtils.js' lib to TypeScript #29012
• [@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: af55c9c#r137436022
• [@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 is a specific design flow allowing editing of fields by approver and admin and a discussion on #expensify-bugs is not useful
• [@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.

The two tests (Expense reports (request made in a workspace) and Expense reports - Collect policy) in the Tests here in #33633 are regression tests.

Expense reports (request made in a workspace)

1. Create a workspace as the Admin and invite User A.
2. Log in as User A and request money from the workspace chat using the 'Scan' tab.
3. Make sure you can edit all the details, and go ahead and edit all of them.
4. Log in as the Admin, make sure you can edit all the details of the request, except the Receipt.
5. Settle the request. Make sure you cannot edit the Amount/Currency, Merchant, Date, and Receipt.
6. Log in as User A, make sure you can't edit the request anymore.

Expense reports - Collect policy
We will need three accounts here, an admin, the approver, and the submitter.

1. As the submitter, create a request in the workspace chat using 'Scan' and submit it.
2. Still as the submitter, make sure you can edit all the request details while it's processing, and go ahead and edit all of >them
3. Log in as the approver, make sure you can edit all the details except the receipt.
4. Approve the request, make sure you cannot edit the Amount/Currency, Merchant, Date, and Receipt.
5. Log in as the admin, verify the same as Step 4.
6. Pay the request as the admin, repeat verifications from Step 4.
7. Log in as the submitter now, make sure you can't edit any details from the request.

👍 or 👎

[trjExpensify]

Perfect. I've created an issue for Applause to discuss adding these.

Payment summary:

• $500 to @c3024 for the C+ review.

[trjExpensify]

Offer sent!

[trjExpensify]

Removed the ⭐ on Youssef, as this is over to me.

[c3024]

Accepted. Thanks.

[trjExpensify]

Melvin is not being nice. Looking!

[trjExpensify]

Paid!