[$250] Dupe detect - Paid expense appears in Review duplicates flow but unable to complete the flow

[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: 9.0.13-3
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat
3. Submit an expense
4. Pay the expense
5. Submit another two same expenses (same amount, date and merchant) as expense from Step 3
6. Go to transaction thread of any of the submitted expense from Step 5
7. Click Review duplicates
8. Click Keep this one on the paid expense (from Step 4)
9. Click Confirm
10. Note that the other two expenses are not removed
11. Go to transaction thread of any of the submitted expense from Step 5
12. Click Review duplicates
13. Click Keep this one on any of the unpaid expense (from Step 5)
14. Click Confirm
15. Note that the process fails and Review duplicates button reappears

Expected Result:

In Step 8, the paid expense should not appear in Review duplicates flow if we cannot keep only the paid one (Step 10)

Actual Result:

In Step 8, the paid expense appears in Review duplicates flow and we cannot keep only the paid one (Step 10)
We also cannot keep only the unpaid one (Step 15) after attempting to keep only the paid expense

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6554735_1722091102495.bandicam_2024-07-27_22-29-22-189.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01add0c19e8ce4b462
• Upwork Job ID: 1817919014389694342
• Last Price Increase: 2024-08-12

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.

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave-collect - Release 2

[lanitochka17]

@zanyrenney FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors

[nyomanjyotisa]

Proposal

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

Paid expense appears in Review duplicates flow but unable to complete the flow

What is the root cause of that problem?

Paid duplicates transaction from other reports are included in the transactionViolations onyx data from the API response

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

We should filter the transactions to show in the Review duplicates page to only show transaction within the current report

Add the following code here

    const finalTransactions = useMemo(
        () => transactions?.filter((transaction) => report?.chatReportID === transaction?.reportID),
        [transactions, report?.chatReportID]
    );

    const finalTransactionIDs = useMemo(
        () => finalTransactions?.map((transaction) => transaction?.transactionID),
        [finalTransactions]
    );

use finalTransactionIDs here

and use finalTransactions here

RESULT

-1-New-Expensify.13.mp4

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[daledah]

Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2024-08-09 07:00:14 UTC.

Proposal

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

In Step 8, the paid expense appears in Review duplicates flow and we cannot keep only the paid one (Step 10)
We also cannot keep only the unpaid one (Step 15) after attempting to keep only the paid expense

What is the root cause of that problem?

In step 8, the list of transactions to display is from:

App/src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/Review.tsx

Line 36 in 08bb00b

const transactionIDs = [transactionID, ...duplicateTransactionIDs];

where we do not filter out the paid transactions.

The similar logic appears in:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview/MoneyRequestPreviewContent.tsx

Line 282 in 08bb00b

const allTransactionIDsDuplicates = [reviewingTransactionID, ...duplicates].filter((id) => id !== transaction?.transactionID);

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.ts

Line 853 in 08bb00b

const transactions = [transactionID, ...duplicates].map((item) => getTransaction(item));

App/src/pages/TransactionDuplicate/Review.tsx

Line 36 in 08bb00b

const transactionIDs = [transactionID, ...duplicateTransactionIDs];

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.ts

Line 973 in 08bb00b

transactionIDList: reviewDuplicates?.duplicates ?? [],

Then, when calling API Transaction_Merge, the transactionIDList includes paid expenses as well.

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

We should create a function to filter out the paid expense:

function removeSettledTransactions(transactionIDs: string[]) {
    return transactionIDs.filter((transactionID) => !isSettled(allTransactions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionID}`]?.reportID));
}

then use it in

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview/MoneyRequestPreviewContent.tsx

Line 282 in 08bb00b

const allTransactionIDsDuplicates = [reviewingTransactionID, ...duplicates].filter((id) => id !== transaction?.transactionID);

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.ts

Line 853 in 08bb00b

const transactions = [transactionID, ...duplicates].map((item) => getTransaction(item));

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils.ts

Line 973 in 08bb00b

transactionIDList: reviewDuplicates?.duplicates ?? [],

Additional implementation based on new expected behavior in comment:

We should display a message under the Keep All button indicating that some duplicates have already been approved or reimbursed.

In there, add:

    const settledTransaction = transactions.find((transaction) => isSettled(transaction?.reportID));

to know whether we have the transactions that have already been approved or reimbursed.

Then use it to display the text "Some of these duplicates have been approved or paid already":

                    {!!settledTransaction && <View style={[styles.textNormal, styles.colorMuted]}>Some of these duplicates have been approved or paid already</View>}

We can't remove the Keep this one button completely as there might be more than one unapproved expense and the user might want to keep one of them.

We can update it:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview/MoneyRequestPreviewContent.tsx

Line 443 in 08bb00b

{isReviewDuplicateTransactionPage && (

to:

            {isReviewDuplicateTransactionPage && !isSettled (

[zanyrenney]

adding external and to project

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01add0c19e8ce4b462

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @parasharrajat (External)

[zanyrenney]

Hey there @parasharrajat please can you review the proposals above and let me know if we can move forward with either of these.

[parasharrajat]

Let me check.

[parasharrajat]

May be a backend issue. Let me get some clarifications.

[parasharrajat]

OK so the approved and paid expenses should not come in the duplicate violations. I think it is backend issue if backend is sending those.
🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @techievivek, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[parasharrajat]

@techievivek Could you please check if backend needs to be fixed here?

[techievivek]

Looks like we are returning transactions from other reports as well.

[techievivek]

@cead22 @pecanoro, Looking for some help here. Are transactions from other reports expected to show up on the review duplicates page?

[techievivek]

Not overdue, already commented above.

[parasharrajat]

OK. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. @daledah, it looks like there is a small divergence from what we implemented on the PR.

Could you please hide keep this one button when there are any paid expenses in the duplicate? Thus only keep All will function.

[parasharrajat]

@pecanoro I believe we should be doing the same for approved expenses as well. Correct?

[pecanoro]

Yes, approved and paid!

[dylanexpensify]

@daledah bump on this:

OK. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. @daledah, it looks like there is a small divergence from what we implemented on the PR.

Could you please hide keep this one button when there are any paid expenses in the duplicate? Thus only keep All will function.

[parasharrajat]

PR is merged

[techievivek]

It has been more than 2 weeks since the PR has hit production. I think we can move with the payment here. cc @zanyrenney, thanks.

[parasharrajat]

@zanyrenney Bump...Could you please post the summary?

[zanyrenney]

Seems like the automation is still failing.

[zanyrenney]

payment summary

$250 for @parasharrajat can be requested through ND.
$250 for @daledah needs to be paid through upwork.

@daledah can you apply to the job please?

[melvin-bot]

@parasharrajat, @techievivek, @zanyrenney, @daledah Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[zanyrenney]

@daledah still hasn't applied to the job,.

[daledah]

@zanyrenney When I access the job Upwork says the job is no longer available, can you please create an offer for my account https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~0138d999529f34d33f

[zanyrenney]

Hey @daledah offer sent!!

[daledah]

@zanyrenney Thx, I accepted it in Upwork

[zanyrenney]

payment summary

$250 for @parasharrajat can be requested through ND.
$250 for @daledah needs to be paid through upwork. PAID

[parasharrajat]

Payment requested as per #46372 (comment)

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @parasharrajat