pay conditions based on reimbursement settings #36814

c3024 · 2024-02-19T19:29:38Z

Details

This PR modifies pay conditions for different policies based on their reimbursement settings. Refer to the discussion in the referred issue.

Fixed Issues

$ #34951
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Use the following table for reference:

Reimbursement Choice	Options to be shown to admins	Shown to
Direct(*)	`Pay with Expensify` or `Pay elsewhere`	Remiburser only
Indirect	`Pay elsewhere` only	All admins
None	None	NA

(*) We only show Pay button in Direct reimbursement when the money request's amount is below the Manual Reimbursement threshold in OldDot:

Test 1

Pre-requisite: A paid policy with reimbursement choice as Direct with a non-reimburser admin (an admin who is not a reimburser), a reimburser-admin, and a member.

On New Dot

[Member] Go to the workspace chat, make a money request and submit
Verify that the Pay with Expensify and Pay elsewhere buttons appear, after approval, only for the reimburser admin and not the non-reimburser admin

Test 2

Pre-requisite: A paid policy with reimbursement choice as Indirect with an admin and a member.

On New Dot

[Member] Go to the workspace chat, make a money request and submit
Verify that the Pay Elsewhere button appears for the admin after approval

Test 3

Pre-requisite: A paid policy with reimbursement choice as None with an admin and a member.

On New Dot

[Member] Go to the workspace chat, make a money request and submit
Verify that no Pay button appears for any admin

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as testing steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

test1Android.mp4

test2and3Android.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

test1AndroidChrome.mp4

test2And3AndroidChrome.mp4

iOS: Native

test1iOS.mp4

test2and3iOS.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

test1iOSSafari.mp4

test2and3iOSSafari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Test 1

test1reimbursement.mov

Test 2 and Test 3

test23reimbursement.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

test2and3Desktop.mp4

c3024 · 2024-02-20T08:16:48Z

@marcochavezf

I drafted a PR and added Tests above but I think I need accounts in different paid policies with different reimbursement options for checking with Tests.

Presently I have accounts for a member, approver and non-reimburser admin in a collect policy with reimbursement choice as Direct. I think I need a reimburser account as well for this.

Similarly, I require these accounts for policies with reimbursement options as Indirect and None.

Could you help with these?

marcochavezf · 2024-02-20T19:43:11Z

Sure, @c3024 can you provide me with your email to add you to some policies with that configuration? Alternatively, I think you can create them on OldDot by following similar steps from this PR. Can you try to create a few?

marcochavezf · 2024-02-21T17:09:53Z

Hi @c3024, were you able to create the testing policy in OldDot?

c3024 · 2024-02-21T17:18:30Z

It was tricky. When I created a policy on old dot the value for reimbursement does not exist in the policy at first so on New dot the policy was sent with empty string ``. I found that first I need to change the reimbursement option on Old Dot to None or Indirect and then set isPolicyExpenseChatEnabled to `true` for it to properly work.

I think I am able to create correctly now. I'll verify all tests I can with these now. If I am not able to verify any tests I'll ask for help.

Thanks. @marcochavezf

marcochavezf · 2024-02-21T17:21:07Z

Cool, yeah also isPolicyExpenseChatEnabled should be enabled before adding a new member to the policy so the new member gets the workspace chat. And yes, if you get stuck don't hesitate to post, I'm happy to help

c3024 · 2024-02-22T02:24:44Z

We are pushing Pay with Expensify as well in the SettlementButton here

App/src/components/SettlementButton.tsx

Lines 145 to 146 in 3e77445

    
           [CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.VBBA]: { 
        
               text: translate('iou.settleExpensify', {formattedAmount}),

from here

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/ReportPreview.tsx

Line 305 in 3e77445

<SettlementButton

for all expense reports.

Then, even for Indirect policies we will still show Pay with Expensify with this logic.

But as per this comment I think we want to show only Pay elsewhere for all admins for Indirect policies, right?

So, do we need to change the options pushed into payment options based on the policy reimbursement choice here

App/src/components/SettlementButton.tsx

Line 175 in 3e77445

if (isExpenseReport) {

in the SettlementButton as well?

Secondly, as per the same comment mentioned above we should show SettlementButton with only Pay with Expensify option for reimburser only in case of Direct policy, right? This should also then need changes in options pushed into the paymentOptions based on the reimbursement choice because by default in all cases we are pushing the Pay elsewhere option into the payment options.

I think the following table is what we need finally, right?

Reimbursement Choice	Options to be shown to admins	Shown to
Direct	`Pay with Expensify` only	Remiburser only
Indirect	`Pay elsewhere` only	All admins
None	None	NA

@marcochavezf

marcochavezf · 2024-02-22T19:07:38Z

We are pushing Pay with Expensify as well in the SettlementButton here

Oh that's correct, we'd want to update the logic in SettlementButton too, so we either show Pay elsewhere or Pay with Expensify for expense reports

Then, even for Indirect policies we will still show Pay with Expensify with this logic.

But as per #34951 (comment) I think we want to show only Pay elsewhere for all admins for Indirect policies, right?

Yes, only Pay elsewhere for all admins for Indirect policies, and yeap that's correct we'd need to modify the SettelementButton component to handle the logic for reimbursementChoice internally. We already have the policyID there, so we can probably get reimbursementChoice inside of SettelementButton or pass reimbursementChoice as prop, either choice is fine, you can do the implementation that you consider correct.

we should show SettlementButton with only Pay with Expensify option for reimburser only in case of Direct policy, right?

Yup

This should also then need changes in options pushed into the paymentOptions based on the reimbursement choice because by default in all cases we are pushing the Pay elsewhere option into the payment options.

I think you're referring to paymentMethods in SettlementButton, right? But in any case, yeah your analysis is correct and feel free to implement it as you think it's correct :) We can work on the details in the PR

I think the following table is what we need finally, right?

Just a minor modification: for the Direct the reimbuser should be able to also select Pay elsewhere

Reimbursement Choice	Options to be shown to admins	Shown to
Direct	`Pay with Expensify` or `Pay elsewhere`	Remiburser only
Indirect	`Pay elsewhere` only	All admins
None	None	NA

melvin-bot · 2024-02-23T16:42:42Z

@ntdiary Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

c3024 · 2024-02-23T16:44:38Z

Updated the test videos for Web Chrome.

Could you review the PR? 🙏 @marcochavezf

Will test on other platforms and upload if the changes look fine. Thanks.

marcochavezf

Nice work! The logic LGTM overall! Just a few changes

src/types/onyx/Policy.ts

src/components/SettlementButton.tsx

src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts

…settings

ntdiary · 2024-02-26T07:23:57Z

It seems like this PR can be merged after @marcochavezf's review, doesn't need another C+ to review it? If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. 😄

…settings

c3024 · 2024-02-26T16:48:42Z

All suggested changes added.

marcochavezf · 2024-02-27T17:32:19Z

@c3024 conflicts, also can you upload a video or screenshot for each reimbursement choice?

…settings

c3024 · 2024-02-28T07:39:10Z

Had already updated the videos in the checklist here.

After merging main and fixing conflicts tested again as follows:

For Direct I attached the video of a non-reimburser admin but I could not check with a reimburser account. Direct policy is disabled when I make a policy with console commands. I cannot change the collect policy reimburser email in the policy created here as well.

Could you check if the reimburser view works well? Otherwise please add me as a remiburser for this policy temporarily.

Screen.Recording.2024-02-28.at.1.17.05.PM.mov

Direct

test1reimbursement.mov

For Indirect and None policies, I tested with the above referred collect policy as well as another policy with Submit and Close as the approval mode with only one member and one admin (who is also the user to whom the member submits their reports to.) created with console commands.

Indirect

collectPolicyVideo.mp4

indirectReimbursement.mp4

None

collectPolicyVideo.mp4

noneReimbursement.mp4

marcochavezf · 2024-02-28T19:59:47Z

@c3024 Tested with the Direct configuraiton and looks good!

Additionally, you can follow these instructions to add a bank account (only staging) to your policy to test with a reimburser.

I noticed we're not showing the Pay button for IOUs (Request money directly from someone) and for money requests from free workspaces:

I think we need to check if the policy is not a group policy, then the user is a payer if it's isCurrentUserManager

marcochavezf · 2024-02-28T20:01:06Z

src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts

@@ -117,6 +117,16 @@ const isFreeGroupPolicy = (policy: OnyxEntry<Policy> | EmptyObject): boolean =>

 const isPolicyMember = (policyID: string, policies: OnyxCollection<Policy>): boolean => Object.values(policies ?? {}).some((policy) => policy?.id === policyID);

+const isPolicyPayer = (policy: OnyxEntry<Policy> | EmptyObject, session: OnyxEntry<Session>, isApproved: boolean, isManager: boolean, isAdmin: boolean): boolean => {


Let's change the name to isPayer since it would be used for IOUs too to avoid a regression

Suggested change

const isPolicyPayer = (policy: OnyxEntry<Policy> | EmptyObject, session: OnyxEntry<Session>, isApproved: boolean, isManager: boolean, isAdmin: boolean): boolean => {

const isPayer = (policy: OnyxEntry<Policy> | EmptyObject, session: OnyxEntry<Session>, isApproved: boolean, isManager: boolean, isAdmin: boolean): boolean => {

marcochavezf · 2024-02-28T20:03:42Z

src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts

+    if (policy?.reimbursementChoice === CONST.POLICY.REIMBURSEMENT_CHOICES.REIMBURSEMENT_MANUAL) {
+        return isAdmin && (isApproved || isManager);
+    }
+    return false;


In order to show the Pay button for IOUs (and free workspaces for now), I think we need to check if the user is manager and if the policy is not a group policy.

@marcochavezf

Thank you! Focused too much only on policies and let this blunder slide. Fixed now.

One last question, we show only Pay elsewhere for free workspaces, right? Or do we show Pay with Expensify as well?

Oh good question, we should show both Pay elsewhere and Pay with Expensify for non-group policies (free workspaces and IOUs). In theory for free workspaces the admin and the manager should be the same, so we should probably show both buttons to the manager if policy is a non-group policy/workspace.

Thanks. Done. 👍

c3024 · 2024-03-01T12:16:25Z

IOUs and Free workspaces

IOUsAndFreeWorkspaces.mp4

Direct

paidPolicies.mp4

marcochavezf

Looking great, thanks for the changes! Just a few other minor details and I think we're good to go

marcochavezf · 2024-03-01T21:02:50Z

src/components/SettlementButton.tsx

+    const policy = ReportUtils.getPolicy(policyID);
+    const session = useSession();
+    const chatReport = ReportUtils.getReport(chatReportID);
+    const isPaidGroupPolicy = ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicy(iouReport as OnyxEntry<Report>) || ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicyExpenseChat(chatReport as OnyxEntry<Report>);


We can check only isPaidGroupPolicyExpenseChat since isPaidGroupPolicy is already called in isPaidGroupPolicyExpenseChat:

Suggested change

const isPaidGroupPolicy = ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicy(iouReport as OnyxEntry<Report>) || ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicyExpenseChat(chatReport as OnyxEntry<Report>);

const isPaidGroupPolicy = ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicyExpenseChat(chatReport as OnyxEntry<Report>);

marcochavezf · 2024-03-01T21:09:08Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+    session: OnyxEntry<Session>,
+    iouReport: OnyxEntry<Report>,
+    // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-shadow
+    isPaidGroupPolicy: boolean,


I think we can use the function PolicyUtils.isPaidGroupPolicy(policy) inside of isPayer so it won't be necessary to pass isPaidGroupPolicy as prop and diable the eslint rule

marcochavezf · 2024-03-01T21:11:12Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+        // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-shadow
        const isPayer = currentUserAccountID === report?.managerID;

        return isPayer ? [managerIcon, ownerIcon] : [ownerIcon, managerIcon];


Let's rename the variable here to also avoid the no-shadow eslint error, also the managerID is not always the payer, so the correct variable name here would be isManager:

Suggested change

// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-shadow

const isPayer = currentUserAccountID === report?.managerID;

return isPayer ? [managerIcon, ownerIcon] : [ownerIcon, managerIcon];

const isManager = currentUserAccountID === report?.managerID;

return isManager ? [managerIcon, ownerIcon] : [ownerIcon, managerIcon];

c3024 · 2024-03-04T15:58:34Z

@marcochavezf

Thanks for the suggestions. Fixed.

I tested all except the reimburser's view. I could not create a policy with a bank account. Can you please verify the reimburser view?

IOUandFreeWorkspace.mp4

indirectAndNonePolicy.mp4

collectPolicyWithReimburser.mp4

marcochavezf

Cool! I tested all the scenarios and looks good!

marcochavezf · 2024-03-04T20:20:30Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

OSBotify · 2024-03-04T20:34:49Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2024-03-06T22:04:51Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcochavezf in version: 1.4.48-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

marcochavezf · 2024-03-07T00:29:28Z

Notified internally to the QA team about the changes for the Pay button. GH to update the TC in TR here

OSBotify · 2024-03-07T23:50:51Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.4.48-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

c3024 added 2 commits February 20, 2024 00:57

pay conditions based on reimbursement settings

8efc85b

fix lint

7b5b8ac

payment options based on reimbursement choice

1c9b2a2

c3024 marked this pull request as ready for review February 23, 2024 16:42

c3024 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 23, 2024 16:42

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team February 23, 2024 16:42

melvin-bot bot requested a review from ntdiary February 23, 2024 16:42

marcochavezf self-requested a review February 23, 2024 18:50

marcochavezf requested changes Feb 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/types/onyx/Policy.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/components/SettlementButton.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

c3024 and others added 3 commits February 24, 2024 21:21

fix review comments

6cd13a0

Merge branch 'main' into 34951-pay-conditions-based-on-reimbursement-…

0bce44c

…settings

Merge branch 'main' into 34951-pay-conditions-based-on-reimbursement-…

4f8a178

…settings

c3024 added 2 commits February 26, 2024 21:40

Merge branch 'main' into 34951-pay-conditions-based-on-reimbursement-…

805b511

…settings

fix lint

c142581

marcochavezf mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-03-14] [HOLD for payment #36814] [$500] [Collect approvers] Pay button appears for the approved report #34951

Closed

6 tasks

c3024 added 2 commits February 28, 2024 08:11

Merge branch 'main' into 34951-pay-conditions-based-on-reimbursement-…

eec5698

…settings

fix prettier

e616fe7

marcochavezf reviewed Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

c3024 added 2 commits February 29, 2024 18:08

fix pay button for ious and free policies

760e51b

show pay with expensify for free policies

f0b7d00

marcochavezf requested changes Mar 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

fewer params for isPayer,simplify paidPolicy check

e9306bd

mallenexpensify mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2024

[Collect approvers] [$1000] Expense - Error appears when admin tries to pay a request without having approved it #34857

Closed

6 tasks

marcochavezf approved these changes Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcochavezf removed the request for review from ntdiary March 4, 2024 20:27

marcochavezf assigned marcochavezf and c3024 and unassigned marcochavezf Mar 4, 2024

marcochavezf merged commit c4ceaed into Expensify:main Mar 4, 2024
17 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-03-06 #37845

Closed

63 tasks

m-natarajan mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2024

Pay elsewhere button does not show up for Admin after report approval #37867

Closed

6 tasks

barros001 mentioned this pull request Mar 8, 2024

Disable Submit/Approve buttons when self approving is disabled and user is trying to self approve #37348

Merged

50 tasks

cubuspl42 mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2024

fix: Approved expense preview does not show GBR when submitter needs to add a bank account #35486

Merged

50 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

pay conditions based on reimbursement settings #36814

pay conditions based on reimbursement settings #36814

c3024 commented Feb 19, 2024 •

edited by marcochavezf

Loading

c3024 commented Feb 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcochavezf commented Feb 20, 2024

marcochavezf commented Feb 21, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 21, 2024

marcochavezf commented Feb 21, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcochavezf commented Feb 22, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 23, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 23, 2024

marcochavezf left a comment

ntdiary commented Feb 26, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 26, 2024

marcochavezf commented Feb 27, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcochavezf commented Feb 28, 2024

marcochavezf Feb 28, 2024

marcochavezf Feb 28, 2024

c3024 Feb 29, 2024

marcochavezf Feb 29, 2024

c3024 Mar 1, 2024

c3024 commented Mar 1, 2024

marcochavezf left a comment

marcochavezf Mar 1, 2024

marcochavezf Mar 1, 2024

marcochavezf Mar 1, 2024

c3024 commented Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcochavezf left a comment

marcochavezf commented Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

OSBotify commented Mar 4, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2024

marcochavezf commented Mar 7, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 7, 2024

		@@ -117,6 +117,16 @@ const isFreeGroupPolicy = (policy: OnyxEntry<Policy> \| EmptyObject): boolean =>

		const isPolicyMember = (policyID: string, policies: OnyxCollection<Policy>): boolean => Object.values(policies ?? {}).some((policy) => policy?.id === policyID);

		const isPolicyPayer = (policy: OnyxEntry<Policy> \| EmptyObject, session: OnyxEntry<Session>, isApproved: boolean, isManager: boolean, isAdmin: boolean): boolean => {

	const isPolicyPayer = (policy: OnyxEntry<Policy> \| EmptyObject, session: OnyxEntry<Session>, isApproved: boolean, isManager: boolean, isAdmin: boolean): boolean => {
	const isPayer = (policy: OnyxEntry<Policy> \| EmptyObject, session: OnyxEntry<Session>, isApproved: boolean, isManager: boolean, isAdmin: boolean): boolean => {

	const isPaidGroupPolicy = ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicy(iouReport as OnyxEntry<Report>) \|\| ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicyExpenseChat(chatReport as OnyxEntry<Report>);
	const isPaidGroupPolicy = ReportUtils.isPaidGroupPolicyExpenseChat(chatReport as OnyxEntry<Report>);

pay conditions based on reimbursement settings #36814

pay conditions based on reimbursement settings #36814

Conversation

c3024 commented Feb 19, 2024 • edited by marcochavezf Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

c3024 commented Feb 20, 2024 • edited Loading

marcochavezf commented Feb 20, 2024

marcochavezf commented Feb 21, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 21, 2024

marcochavezf commented Feb 21, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 22, 2024 • edited Loading

marcochavezf commented Feb 22, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 23, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 23, 2024

marcochavezf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ntdiary commented Feb 26, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 26, 2024

marcochavezf commented Feb 27, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading

Direct

Indirect

None

marcochavezf commented Feb 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

c3024 commented Mar 1, 2024

IOUs and Free workspaces

Direct

marcochavezf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

c3024 commented Mar 4, 2024 • edited Loading

marcochavezf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcochavezf commented Mar 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

OSBotify commented Mar 4, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2024

marcochavezf commented Mar 7, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 7, 2024

c3024 commented Feb 19, 2024 •

edited by marcochavezf

Loading

c3024 commented Feb 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

c3024 commented Feb 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

c3024 commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

c3024 commented Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcochavezf commented Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading