[HOLD for payment 2025-02-05] [$250] Add report action for deleting expenses off of processing reports

[garrettmknight]

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: N/A
Reproducible in staging?: N/A
Reproducible in production?: N/A
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?:
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: None
Issue reported by: @sakluger
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): It's in eng, but it's more #expense

Action Performed:

1. Create new workspace (Instant Submit will be enabled by default)
2. Enable Approvals
3. Invite Submitter A
4. Have Submitter A create an expense
5. Have Submitter A delete the expense

Expected Result:

When we make a change to an expense on a processing report, we add a report action indicating the change. We'd expect to see something like:

User Name deleted an expense on this report, [Merchant] - [Amount]

If it was me deleting it, it'd look like this:

Garrett Knight deleted an expense on this report, Nando's - £12.77

Actual Result:

The expense is deleted without a trace, confusing approvers when they've seen that an expense was once on the report.

Workaround:

None

Platforms:

All

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021867259873329835185
• Upwork Job ID: 1867259873329835185
• Last Price Increase: 2024-12-12
• Automatic offers:
• brunovjk | Reviewer | 105310844

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @zanyrenney

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @zanyrenney (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

The expense is deleted without a trace, confusing approvers when they've seen that an expense was once on the report.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we delete a money request, we don't add any report action to keep track of the change

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

1. Define a new report action for delete expense like DELETE_EXPENSE

2. In deleteMoneyRequest, create an optimistic action, remove pendingAction in sucessData, and add an error in failureData in the expense report if shouldDeleteIOUReport is false and the report is a processing report. This action will have some data in originalMessage like amount, merchant, currency

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Line 5735 in ce282d3

function deleteMoneyRequest(transactionID: string, reportAction: OnyxTypes.ReportAction, isSingleTransactionView = false) {

3. Add the deleteExpenseReportActionID param as the reportActionID of the optimistic action above here

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Line 5962 in ce282d3

const parameters: DeleteMoneyRequestParams = {

4. Define a function to get the translation for the action and

• Add a case for this action here for the alternative text in LHN

• Add a case in ReportActionItem here for the action in ReportScreen

• Add a case in getReportName function here for thread header translation

• Add a case in here for the copy message

5. Require backend change

• Introduce a new param in DeleteMoneyRequest API like deleteExpenseReportActionID and use this ID to generate a new delete expense action and return it to front end.

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

We can define a new test case in IOUTest here. We need to create mock data accordingly and verify a new delete expense action is created in this case when we call DeleteMoneyRequest API.

App/tests/actions/IOUTest.ts

Line 1910 in ce282d3

describe('deleteMoneyRequest', () => {

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[melvin-bot]

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

[zanyrenney]

hey @youssef-lr are you working on this one, or should we be assigning external for them to review the proposal above? Thanks!

[youssef-lr]

@zanyrenney I should have the backend PRs ready today, but we can also assign someone to work on the frontend PRs. @nkdengineer's proposal LGTM, except that we should only record this action if the report is PROCESSING.

[youssef-lr]

Made some progress locally and should have the first Auth PR ready by EOD

[zanyrenney]

great update, thank you so much @youssef-lr !