Fix/35134: Auto select category and tag by dukenv0307 · Pull Request #35862 · Expensify/App

dukenv0307 · 2024-02-06T01:00:33Z

Details

Include auto-selection of tags/categories when a single option is available

Fixed Issues

$ #35134
PROPOSAL: #35134 (comment)

Tests

Pre-requisite: Violations beta needs to be enabled

Set up a workspace with only one tag and one category enabled
Open ND. Click on FAB => Choose "Request money" => Choose "Manual"
Enter amount
Select a workspace that has only one option variable in search category-tag
In confirmation screen, verify that the category/tag are auto selected.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Pre-requisite: Violations beta needs to be enabled

Set up a workspace with only one tag and one category enabled
Open ND. Click on FAB => Choose "Request money" => Choose "Manual"
Enter amount
Select a workspace that has only one option variable in search category-tag
In confirmation screen, verify that the category/tag are auto selected.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screencast.from.07-02-2024.17.55.51.webm

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screencast.from.06-02-2024.07.50.40.webm

iOS: Native

Screencast.from.06-02-2024.08.20.21.webm

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screencast.from.06-02-2024.07.53.12.webm

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screencast.from.06-02-2024.07.47.31.webm

MacOS: Desktop

Screencast.from.06-02-2024.08.09.19.webm

melvin-bot · 2024-02-06T01:00:38Z

@jjcoffee 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]

jjcoffee · 2024-02-06T10:02:09Z

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-native-2024-02-06_11.43.02.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-chrome-2024-02-06_11.47.02.mp4

iOS: Native

ios-native-2024-02-06_11.38.17.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-safari-2024-02-06_11.36.42.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

desktop-chrome-2024-02-19_15.41.08.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-app-2024-02-06_11.27.29.mp4

jjcoffee · 2024-02-06T10:04:32Z

@dukenv0307 I think it's a bit clearer if the first test step is "Set up a workspace with only one tag and one category enabled".

jjcoffee · 2024-02-06T10:04:49Z

@dukenv0307 Could you add an Android native screenshot?

dukenv0307 · 2024-02-07T11:00:58Z

@jjcoffee I fixed all your 3 comments

jjcoffee · 2024-02-08T11:50:29Z

@dukenv0307 Let's limit this to only auto-select if the category or tag is required (per this comment). I've not had feedback on whether or not we should hold for the multi-level tags PR (#34983) but it might be worth waiting for that anyway before doing any more work here.

jjcoffee · 2024-02-15T10:01:47Z

That PR should be getting merged today.

jjcoffee · 2024-02-16T10:49:37Z

Merged! @dukenv0307 Are you able to rework this to handle multi-level tags and to only auto-select if the tag/category is required?

dukenv0307 · 2024-02-19T07:58:43Z

@jjcoffee Added the logic to handle:

Multiple level tags
Only auto-select if the category or tag is required

jjcoffee · 2024-02-19T14:39:24Z

Using isCategoryRequired here means we'll get inconsistent behaviour vs tags as isCategoryRequired relies on canUseViolations being true, whereas the checks for the tags are not reliant on that. Do you think it's better to just use lodashGet(policy, 'requiresCategory', false) directly here?

@jjcoffee With tags, we not only have isTagRequired which is canUseViolations && lodashGet(policy, 'requiresTag', false) but also have the required field for each tag in multiple level tags. So which required field should we use in this case? I am using the first one

@dukenv0307 Ah good point! For multi-level tags I think we need to use the required field on each tag. For single-level tags however, we need to use isTagRequired as on oldDot this option is only available when multi-level tags are turned off (People must tag expenses):

Regarding my previous comment, I think it probably makes sense to just add canUseViolations to the tags to keep things consistent. Tags and Categories don't display the Required text unless canUseViolations is true so it makes sense for us to tie in with that I think!

jjcoffee · 2024-02-22T12:58:27Z

        policyTagLists.forEach((tagList, index) => {
            const enabledTags = _.filter(tagList.tags, (tag) => tag.enabled);
-            if (enabledTags.length !== 1 || !tagList.required || TransactionUtils.getTag(transaction, index)) {
+            if (enabledTags.length !== 1 || isMultipleLevelsTags ? !tagList.required : !isTagRequired || TransactionUtils.getTag(transaction, index)) {


Suggested change

if (enabledTags.length !== 1 || isMultipleLevelsTags ? !tagList.required : !isTagRequired || TransactionUtils.getTag(transaction, index)) {

if (enabledTags.length !== 1 || !tagList.required || TransactionUtils.getTag(transaction, index)) {

Looking at this again, I think isTagRequired probably should/will be depreciated anyway as now all tags (including single level) will have the required property.

I just checked again, and I see that the required field in each tag is not returned by BE in case multiple levels tags anymore. Can you help confirm?

Hmm sounds like a bug to me. Can you ask on Slack to see if there's some reason for it?

asked in slack

@jjcoffee I just test again and the tags data is always empty in case of multiple level tags. Do you encounter this, too?

Haha oh sorry I responded on the issue first before seeing this. I'd vote for proceeding with the expectation that single-level tags will also have the required field set as the isTagRequired field seems obsolete to me. cc @puneetlath in case you have thoughts. (And sorry for all the pings!)

@jjcoffee Oh. I agree with you. Currently, In case of multiple level tags but just have one tag list, we are considering them as single tags, that is not correct

@puneetlath What do you think about this comment?

Asked here: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1709227512388819?thread_ts=1708732718.173419&cid=C01GTK53T8Q

@jjcoffee I updated PR based on comment

jjcoffee · 2024-02-22T13:05:04Z

Reported an unrelated bug here where all multi-level tags show as required if the workspace originally had "People must tag expenses" enabled.

jjcoffee · 2024-03-04T10:43:10Z

+        let updatedTagsString = TransactionUtils.getTag(transaction);
+        policyTagLists.forEach((tagList, index) => {
+            const enabledTags = _.filter(tagList.tags, (tag) => tag.enabled);
+            if (isUndefined(tagList.required) || enabledTags.length !== 1 || !tagList.required || TransactionUtils.getTag(transaction, index)) {


How about introducing isTagListRequired here, both to keep things tidy but also so that we can use the canUseViolations flag for tags too?

@jjcoffee Yes. It makes sense that will keep using canUseViolations. I updated PR

jjcoffee

LGTM!

jjcoffee · 2024-03-05T11:52:50Z

@dukenv0307 Can you merge main to fix conflicts?

jjcoffee · 2024-03-05T11:55:31Z

@puneetlath To summarise some of the implementation details here:

Due to the BE issue we've discussed on Slack, auto-select for single-level tags will not work correctly currently. This is because the tag list for them does not have the correct required field (it's there, it just gets stuck on either true or false and never updates). We could use requiresTag from the policy for single-level tags as a workaround, but I guess we can expect the BE issue to be fixed at some point!
Changing the required status of a tag or category on OD whilst a money request screen is open won't revert the auto-selected category/tag. There's no pusher event to support this, so I thought it makes sense to leave it out of the scope of this PR.

jjcoffee · 2024-03-05T13:35:53Z

@dukenv0307 Sorry forgot to say, can you add to the test steps the pre-requisite that the violations beta needs to be enabled? 🙏

dukenv0307 · 2024-03-05T13:41:12Z

@jjcoffee I updated test steps based on your comment

puneetlath

Just one comment.

@jjcoffee can you also make sure to report the BE issue in #expensify-bugs so we make sure it gets handled. You can cc me and yuwen.

jjcoffee · 2024-03-06T09:48:06Z

can you also make sure to report the BE issue in #expensify-bugs so we make sure it gets handled.

@puneetlath Yuwen has pushed a fix, just waiting for it to hit production.

OSBotify · 2024-03-07T21:04:19Z

✋ 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 · 2024-03-08T00:03:26Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.49-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-03-12T18:37:39Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.4.50-5 🚀

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

fix auto select category and tag

6db0aa7

dukenv0307 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 6, 2024 01:00

melvin-bot Bot requested review from jjcoffee and removed request for a team February 6, 2024 01:00

dukenv0307 added 2 commits February 6, 2024 08:27

fix remove hardcode

61f9d38

fix typo

142587c

dukenv0307 mentioned this pull request Feb 6, 2024

[PAID] [$500] [MEDIUM] Feature Request: Auto select the category and/or tag if there is only one option #35134

Closed

jjcoffee reviewed Feb 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/components/MoneyTemporaryForRefactorRequestConfirmationList.js

fix add comment

5a3120b

dukenv0307 added 6 commits February 17, 2024 10:38

fix merge main

d5833a6

fix merge main

2842e16

fix handle multiple tags

6241f85

fix remove hardcode

7c5fa7f

fix remove console log

7729a29

fix merge main

7820222

jjcoffee reviewed Feb 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix required field

b7f38fc

jjcoffee reviewed Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

dukenv0307 added 2 commits February 27, 2024 16:07

fix merge main

4142436

fix issue when updating tag in OD

3085c9b

dukenv0307 added 2 commits March 4, 2024 01:47

fix merge main

014531d

fix use required filed in both single tag and multiple tags

2be9fa8

jjcoffee reviewed Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix create isTagListRequired

8e43ae2

jjcoffee approved these changes Mar 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from puneetlath March 5, 2024 11:52

Merge branch 'main' into fix/35134-auto-select-the-category-and-tag

71bf809

fix lint after merge main

0854392

puneetlath requested changes Mar 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/components/MoneyTemporaryForRefactorRequestConfirmationList.js

puneetlath approved these changes Mar 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

puneetlath merged commit 7b51c3a into Expensify:main Mar 7, 2024

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-03-07 #37938

Closed

43 tasks

	if (enabledTags.length !== 1 \|\| isMultipleLevelsTags ? !tagList.required : !isTagRequired \|\| TransactionUtils.getTag(transaction, index)) {
	if (enabledTags.length !== 1 \|\| !tagList.required \|\| TransactionUtils.getTag(transaction, index)) {

Uh oh!

Conversation

dukenv0307 commented Feb 6, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Feb 6, 2024

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 6, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 6, 2024

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 6, 2024

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Feb 7, 2024

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 8, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 15, 2024

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 16, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Feb 19, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 Mar 3, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Feb 22, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Mar 5, 2024

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Mar 5, 2024

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Mar 5, 2024

Uh oh!

dukenv0307 commented Mar 5, 2024

dukenv0307 commented Feb 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jjcoffee commented Feb 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jjcoffee commented Feb 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jjcoffee commented Feb 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dukenv0307 Mar 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jjcoffee commented Mar 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading