[Due for payment 2025-02-25] Per diem - RHP shows offline view when deleted, fields are not grayed out when edited offline

[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: 9.0.78-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: N/A
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

• Workspace has Per diem rates

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace settings > Per diem
3. Go offline
4. Click on any rate
5. Click Delete
6. Delete the rate
7. Do any edit offline for other rate

Expected Result:

In Step 6, after deleting the rate, RHP will not show offline view

Actual Result:

In Step 6, after deleting the rate, RHP shows offline view while dismissing

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6701539_1734998541203.20241224_075747.mp4

Bug6701539_1734998541202!German_Per_Diem_-Dependent_Tags___2.csv

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

[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.

[daledah]

Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2024-12-24 04:46:36 UTC.

Proposal

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

In Step 6, after deleting the rate, RHP shows offline view while dismissing
In Step 7, when editing any rate, the rate and the edited fields are not grayed out

What is the root cause of that problem?

This new feature comes from: #53625

1. In Step 6, after deleting the rate, RHP shows offline view while dismissing

The navigation take time to dismiss modal, and after deleting the subRate we're removing it in optimistic data

App/src/libs/actions/Policy/PerDiem.ts

Lines 233 to 237 in 8b7096f

	customUnitOnyxUpdate.rates[rateID] = null;
	} else {
	const newSubRates = newCustomUnit.rates[rateID].subRates?.filter((subRate) => !subRates.some((subRateToBeDeleted) => subRateToBeDeleted.subRateID === subRate.id));
	newCustomUnit.rates[rateID].subRates = newSubRates;
	customUnitOnyxUpdate.rates[rateID] = {...customUnitOnyxUpdate.rates[rateID], subRates: newSubRates};

that causes selectedSubRate is undefined so offline view is shown

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/8b7096fc4c4d522407a6f51b4fe0fd3543e5feb2/src/pages/workspace/perDiem/WorkspacePerDiemDetailsPage.tsx#L46C48-L46C63

2. In Step 7, when editing any rate, the rate and the edited fields should be grayed out

We didn't update pendingAction and pendingFields in edit action

App/src/libs/actions/Policy/PerDiem.ts

Lines 284 to 286 in 8b7096f

	customUnits: {
	[customUnit.customUnitID]: newCustomUnit,
	},

...

and didn't wrap OfflineWithFeedback for MenuItem

so we don't see the gray out option

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

1. Don't remove subRate in optimistic data when delete

Here is the sample code

const newSubRatesOnyx = newCustomUnit.rates[rateID].subRates?.map((subRate) => {
            const shouldDelete = subRates.some((subRateToBeDeleted) => subRateToBeDeleted.subRateID === subRate.id);
            return {
                ...subRate,
                pendingAction: shouldDelete ? CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE : subRate.pendingAction,
            }
        });
        if (subRates.length === newCustomUnit.rates[rateID].subRates?.length) {
            delete newCustomUnit.rates[rateID];
        } else {
            const newSubRates = newCustomUnit.rates[rateID].subRates?.filter((subRate) => !subRates.some((subRateToBeDeleted) => subRateToBeDeleted.subRateID === subRate.id));
            
            newCustomUnit.rates[rateID].subRates = newSubRates;
        }
        if(customUnitOnyxUpdate.rates[rateID]?.subRates){
            customUnitOnyxUpdate.rates[rateID].subRates = newSubRatesOnyx
        }

2. When update perdiem data, we should update pendingFields and pendingAction in editPerDiemRateDestination and other funcs

then wrap every menu item inside OfflineWithFeedback

For example:

<OfflineWithFeedback pendingAction={selectedSubRate?.pendingFields?.['name']}>
                        <MenuItemWithTopDescription
                            title={selectedRate?.name}
                            description={translate('workspace.perDiem.destination')}
                            onPress={() => Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.WORKSPACE_PER_DIEM_EDIT_DESTINATION.getRoute(policyID, rateID, subRateID))}
                            shouldShowRightIcon
                        />
                        </OfflineWithFeedback>

3. Update getSubRatesData

App/src/pages/workspace/perDiem/WorkspacePerDiemPage.tsx

Line 74 in 8b7096f

pendingAction: rate.pendingAction,

to

pendingAction: subRate.pendingAction,

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

Result

Screen.Recording.2024-12-24.at.11.41.42.mov

[daledah]

@marcaaron What do you think about my proposal. I can create the quick PR for this DB

[parasharrajat]

Proposal looks good to me. But does this needs to be implemented as part of original PR #53625 given that we are still in regression period.

[daledah]

@parasharrajat It's the new feature and I think it's hard to cover all cases. By the way, offline mode is quite complex to implement so it can be handle in the separate PR. cc @marcaaron

[parasharrajat]

Not sure about that. Let's wait for Marc's reply. There are a few issues poping up from per diem implementation. May be there are pending things from the design doc.

[shubham1206agra]

Step 7 is intentional since we are using Pattern A here.

[jasperhuangg]

Yeah, lets please implement this as part of the original PR, it's definitely a regression that should be fixed. @parasharrajat @daledah

[jasperhuangg]

I'm going to remove the blocker label since this is pretty edge-casey, and it seems we need to sort out which pattern is intended here.

[parasharrajat]

In that case, I am going to tag the original Author/C+.

@shubham1206agra Can you please look into this as it is a regression from your PR?

[shubham1206agra]

lets please implement this as part of the original PR

@jasperhuangg I think the only bug is in step 6. Step 7 is intentional. Please update the issue to reflect that.

[melvin-bot]

@marcaaron Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

@marcaaron Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[melvin-bot]

@marcaaron 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[parasharrajat]

@shubham1206agra Have you created the fix yet?

[shubham1206agra]

Not yet, but planning to do so today itself.

[melvin-bot]

@marcaaron 10 days overdue. I'm getting more depressed than Marvin.

[daledah]

@marcaaron I can help to create the PR fix to speed it up cc @parasharrajat

[parasharrajat]

And I can review asap.

[shubham1206agra]

@daledah Thanks for the help, but I don't think your proposal is correct.

[huult]

Proposal

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

RHP shows offline view when deleted, fields are not grayed out when edited offline

What is the root cause of that problem?

When deleting a Per Diem rate in offline mode, the deleted rate is removed from Onyx, causing selectedSubRate to become undefined.

App/src/pages/workspace/perDiem/WorkspacePerDiemDetailsPage.tsx

Line 41 in 0ee0a12

const selectedSubRate = selectedRate?.subRates?.find((subRate) => subRate.id === subRateID);

So we will briefly show the offline page before closing the modal

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/0ee0a123dac5b49f00da6c90619c03d5dabdd71f/src/pages/workspace/perDiem/WorkspacePerDiemDetailsPage.tsx#L46C48-L46C63

App/src/pages/workspace/perDiem/WorkspacePerDiemDetailsPage.tsx

Line 60 in 0ee0a12

Navigation.goBack();

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

To resolve this issue, we should update the condition for displaying the offline page to ensure that it is not displayed unnecessarily after navigating back

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/0ee0a123dac5b49f00da6c90619c03d5dabdd71f/src/pages/workspace/perDiem/WorkspacePerDiemDetailsPage.tsx#L46C48-L46C63

Update to

    const [hasNavigatedBack, setHasNavigatedBack] = useState(false);
    let FullPageBlockingView;

    if (hasNavigatedBack) {
        FullPageBlockingView = View;
    } else if (isEmptyObject(selectedSubRate)) {
        FullPageBlockingView = FullPageOfflineBlockingView;
    } else {
        FullPageBlockingView = View;
    }

App/src/pages/workspace/perDiem/WorkspacePerDiemDetailsPage.tsx

Line 48 in 0ee0a12

const handleDeletePerDiemRate = () => {

Update to

    const handleDeletePerDiemRate = () => {
        ...
        setHasNavigatedBack(true);
        ...
    };

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

This is a UI bug and does not require a unit test

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[melvin-bot]

@marcaaron 12 days overdue now... This issue's end is nigh!

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 14 days. @marcaaron eroding to Weekly issue.

[Gonals]

This'll be fixed by @shubham1206agra as part of the per diem project

[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 9.0.99-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fixed per diem bugs #56244

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-02-25. 🎊

[shubham1206agra]

@Gonals No payment required here. Please close this issue.