remove distance flow in split bill by situchan · Pull Request #26666 · Expensify/App

situchan · 2023-09-04T13:39:23Z

Details

There are 5 pages where this wrong condition is used

Fixed Issues

$ #26661

Tests

Same as QA step

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA step

QA Steps

Request money from FAB and navigate to Distance tab
Close the RHP
Open Split bill from FAB
Enter amount and continue.
Verify that header title is "Cash", not "Distance"
Select participants and click Next button
Verify that header title is "Cash" and MapBox is not shown on Split confirmation page

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
- I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
- I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
- I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
- I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- Android / native
- Android / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / Safari
- MacOS / Chrome / Safari
- MacOS / Desktop
I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
I followed proper code patterns (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
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
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
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
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(themeColors.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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

web.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

mchrome.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

msafari.mov

Desktop

desktop.mov

iOS

ios.mov

Android

android.mov

melvin-bot · 2023-09-04T13:39:27Z

@allroundexperts 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]

situchan · 2023-09-04T13:43:05Z

TS check is failing

allroundexperts · 2023-09-04T13:56:15Z

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 / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / 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(themeColors.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 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

Web

Screen.Recording.2023-09-04.at.7.39.12.PM.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-09-04.at.7.51.09.PM.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-09-04.at.7.50.21.PM.mov

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-09-04.at.7.45.41.PM.mov

iOS

Screen.Recording.2023-09-04.at.7.53.12.PM.mov

Android

Screen.Recording.2023-09-04.at.7.52.20.PM.mov

situchan · 2023-09-04T13:59:21Z

Unit Test failing this time 😞

Seems like not caused by this PR. Tests pass locally

allroundexperts · 2023-09-04T14:15:58Z

@situchan Tests seem to be passing on main. No?

situchan · 2023-09-04T14:17:30Z

@situchan Tests seem to be passing on main. No?

Failing on main for the same reason

allroundexperts · 2023-09-04T14:22:07Z

Oh well. @mountiny Should we fix the unit tests first before merging this?

mountiny · 2023-09-04T14:33:46Z

Hmm why are they failing? Is it not the checkout issue?

…1-distance-flow-in-split-bill

situchan · 2023-09-04T14:42:58Z

Success this time 🎉

allroundexperts

Looks good!

allroundexperts · 2023-09-04T15:16:12Z

+ * @returns {Boolean}
+ */
+function isDistanceRequest(iouType, selectedTab) {
+    return iouType === CONST.IOU.MONEY_REQUEST_TYPE.REQUEST && selectedTab === CONST.TAB.DISTANCE;


@situchan What does the iouType request means?

Can you rephrase your question?

it means that in the URL there is request and not split

It's clearly stated in jsDoc:

* @param {String} iouType - `send` | `split` | `request`

Oh my god. Sorry, I completely miswrote it. I mean't to ask that how can the send flow be tested?

send flow is disabled for now. It's already announced in channel. So no need to test

Must have missed. Thanks @situchan for the confirmation.

mountiny

Thanks!

mountiny · 2023-09-04T15:26:25Z

@allroundexperts confirmed edit works as expected https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C02NK2DQWUX/p1693841136035539?thread_ts=1693832321.726089&cid=C02NK2DQWUX

OSBotify · 2023-09-04T15:33:56Z

✋ 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 · 2023-09-04T16:49:22Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.63-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-09-05T18:41:57Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.63-2 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-09-05T19:12:20Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.64-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-09-06T18:54:55Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.64-2 🚀

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

remove distance flow in split bill

f587fd8

situchan requested a review from a team as a code owner September 4, 2023 13:39

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team September 4, 2023 13:39

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from allroundexperts September 4, 2023 13:39

mountiny assigned situchan Sep 4, 2023

mountiny self-requested a review September 4, 2023 13:42

fix wrong condition

1ae2a01

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into fix/2666…

9d2940b

…1-distance-flow-in-split-bill

allroundexperts reviewed Sep 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/pages/iou/MoneyRequestDatePage.js Outdated

util function to check if distance request

83a1c8f

situchan requested a review from allroundexperts September 4, 2023 15:04

allroundexperts approved these changes Sep 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

allroundexperts reviewed Sep 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

mountiny approved these changes Sep 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit f831993 into Expensify:main Sep 4, 2023

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-09-04 #26686

Closed

35 tasks

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-09-05 #26820

Closed

48 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-09-12] [$500] DEV: [distance] flow is showing on Split Bill #26661

Closed

6 tasks

situchan deleted the fix/26661-distance-flow-in-split-bill branch November 4, 2025 03:19

Uh oh!

Conversation

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Sep 4, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

allroundexperts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

allroundexperts Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

situchan Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

situchan Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

allroundexperts Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

situchan Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

allroundexperts Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 4, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 5, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 5, 2023

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Sep 6, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts commented Sep 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading