[Due for Payment 2025-03-28][$250] mweb - AlphaNumeric keypad is shown for greater than/less than fields

[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 1.8-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: 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 https://staging.new.expensify.com/home
2. Tap Reports → Filter → Total
3. Try to enter letters in the Greater Than/Less Than field
4. Note user is not allowed to enter letters
5. Try to enter numbers in the Greater Than/Less Than field
6. Note user is allowed to enter numbers

Expected Result:

Since only numbers can be entered in the Greater Than/Less Than field, only a numeric keypad should be displayed

Actual Result:

An alphanumeric keypad is shown, even though only numbers can be entered

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6760145_1741025138175.Screenrecorder-2025-03-03-23-19-29-415.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021897437681050731518
• Upwork Job ID: 1897437681050731518
• Last Price Increase: 2025-03-21
• Automatic offers:
• ZhenjaHorbach | Reviewer | 106460109
• daledah | Contributor | 106460111

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @sakluger

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sakluger (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.

[daledah]

Proposal

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

An alphanumeric keypad is shown, even though only numbers can be entered

What is the root cause of that problem?

In Search filters amount page we didn't specify inputMode for the greater than and less than field

App/src/pages/Search/SearchAdvancedFiltersPage/SearchFiltersAmountPage.tsx

Lines 63 to 73 in ccf52d9

	<InputWrapper
	InputComponent={AmountWithoutCurrencyInput}
	inputID={INPUT_IDS.GREATER_THAN}
	name={INPUT_IDS.GREATER_THAN}
	defaultValue={greaterThanFormattedAmount}
	label={translate('search.filters.amount.greaterThan')}
	accessibilityLabel={translate('search.filters.amount.greaterThan')}
	role={CONST.ROLE.PRESENTATION}
	ref={inputCallbackRef}
	uncontrolled
	/>

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

add inputMode={CONST.INPUT_MODE.NUMERIC} to the fields here:

App/src/pages/Search/SearchAdvancedFiltersPage/SearchFiltersAmountPage.tsx

Line 63 in ccf52d9

<InputWrapper

App/src/pages/Search/SearchAdvancedFiltersPage/SearchFiltersAmountPage.tsx

Line 76 in ccf52d9

<InputWrapper

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

None

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[sakluger]

@Expensify/design can you confirm if we generally use a numeric-only keypad for number-only fields?

If we do decide to change this, it feels like a very minor change, so I would set the price at $125.

[dannymcclain]

Looks like in the app we are, so we should probably do that on mobile web as well.

[shawnborton]

Yup, makes sense to me 👍

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Agreed 👍

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021897437681050731518

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Upwork job price has been updated to $125

[sakluger]

Awesome, thanks! I added the external label so we can get this fixed.

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Thanks for your proposal @daledah
This proposal looks good to me !

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

@ZhenjaHorbach Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[lakchote]

@daledah's proposal LGTM.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @ZhenjaHorbach 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

📣 @daledah 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[daledah]

@ZhenjaHorbach PR is ready.

[sakluger]

Since there's additional work being done here, we can increase the price to $250.

@daledah and @ZhenjaHorbach - are you okay waiting for a single $250 payment once everything is done? Or would you prefer to get paid tomorrow for the first PR, with a follow-up payment for the additional PR?

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Since there's additional work being done here, we can increase the price to $250.

I agree
Thanks !

@daledah and @ZhenjaHorbach - are you okay waiting for a single $250 payment once everything is done? Or would you prefer to get paid tomorrow for the first PR, with a follow-up payment for the additional PR?

I don't mind waiting !

[sakluger]

Sounds good @ZhenjaHorbach!

I'm going to hold off on payment then, but @daledah, if you'd like the first $125 now, please let me know, it's no trouble either way.

[melvin-bot]

Upwork job price has been updated to $250

[daledah]

I don't mind waiting !

Me too 👍

[sakluger]

The new PR was deployed to prod 4 days ago, so the new payment date is March 28.

@ZhenjaHorbach could you please complete the BZ checklist before then? Here's the comment that links to the checklist.

[ZhenjaHorbach]

The new PR was deployed to prod 4 days ago, so the new payment date is March 28.

@ZhenjaHorbach could you please complete the BZ checklist before then? Here's the comment that links to the checklist.

Sure !
I will make it today
And starting today, I'm eligible for NewDot Payments!

[sakluger]

Congrats @ZhenjaHorbach! FYI, once you get set up on NewDot payments, we can pay you via NewDot for any issues you are assigned to after today. Since you were assigned to this one before you became eligible, we will still need to pay you through Upwork.

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Congrats @ZhenjaHorbach! FYI, once you get set up on NewDot payments, we can pay you via NewDot for any issues you are assigned to after today. Since you were assigned to this one before you became eligible, we will still need to pay you through Upwork.

Oh
Got it
Thanks for the explanation !

[ZhenjaHorbach]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
• 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
• 2d. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/47343/files#r2014928591
https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/58197/files#r2014932396

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

  Link to discussion: NA

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

I'm not sure tests are needed here

But ...

Test:

1. Create a WS

2. Go to workflows

3. Press Connect bank account

4. Go through the flow until the company tax Id input page

5. Verify that: The numeric keyboard is opened

6. Open Reports -> Filter -> Total

7. Verify that: The numeric keyboard is opened

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[sakluger]

I'm not sure tests are needed here

Honestly, I think you're right - we probably don't need a test for this one.

[sakluger]

@daledah I sent a new Upwork offer for $250, could you please let me know once you've accepted it?

Summarizing payment on this issue:

Contributor: @daledah $250, sent offer paid via Upwork
Contributor+: @ZhenjaHorbach $250, paid via Upwork

[sakluger]

Waiting for the new offer to be accepted before I can pay it out.

[daledah]

@sakluger Thank you, I accepted the new offer

[sakluger]

Thank you! All paid out now.