[Due for payment 2025-04-08] [$250] "Hidden" shown in the "To" field in the reports page on draft open reports created via OldDot

[m-natarajan]

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: v9.1.19-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
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:
Issue reported by: @danielrvidal
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): #expensify-migrate

Action Performed:

Workspace setup:

• Weekly scheduled submit
• Submit & Close
• Submits to themself

Steps:

1. Create a report on OldDot
2. Add an expense to it
3. Switch over to NewDot
4. Go to the Reports page
5. Observe the To: field in that report in the search results displays as Hidden

Expected Result:

Leave the To: field blank on open expense reports.

Actual Result:

• The To: field shows Hidden if the report is created via OldDot
• The To: field is populated if the report is created via Create expense in NewDot
• The To: field shows Hidden if the report is created via Create report in NewDot (feature is behind a beta).

Workaround:

Create the report on NewDot

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

2025-03-26_15-20-50.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021904916867082880585
• Upwork Job ID: 1904916867082880585
• Last Price Increase: 2025-03-26
• Automatic offers:
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 106680985

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @thesahindia

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @maddylewis (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.

[MelvinBot]

This has been labelled "Needs Reproduction". Follow the steps here: https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/16989

[trjExpensify]

Coming from the thread. I can repro this reliably. Updated the OP with the steps.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021904916867082880585

[melvin-bot]

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

[nkdengineer]

I think it's a backend bug, the report is created from OldDot has managerID is 0.

[trjExpensify]

Alright, we talked about this one in thread here. To not rock the boat on how OldDot works, we'd like to not show the To: value on all open draft expense reports in NewDot. As such, we think this can be external. CC: @mountiny

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

The To: field shows Hidden

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we create a draft report in OD, managerID is 0 and the formattedTo always fallback to Hidden

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Line 120 in 2966c0a

const formattedTo = formatPhoneNumber(getDisplayNameOrDefault(to));

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

We can return the formattedTo as empty if the report of transaction is an open expense report

const report = data[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${transactionItem.reportID}`];
const shouldShowBlankTo = isOpenExpenseReport(report) ;
formattedTo: shouldShowBlankTo ? '' : formattedTo,

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Line 297 in 2966c0a

formattedTo,

Do the same here.

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Line 498 in 2966c0a

formattedTo,

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

If need we can test getTransactionItemCommonFormattedProperties and verify that the formattedTo is empty if shouldShowBankTo is true.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can introduce a new param, shouldShowBankTo in getTransactionItemCommonFormattedProperties and will not fallback the formattedTo to hidden if shouldShowBankTo is true

const formattedTo = formatPhoneNumber(getDisplayNameOrDefault(to, undefined, shouldShowBlankTo));

App/src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts

Line 120 in 738fe15

const formattedTo = formatPhoneNumber(getDisplayNameOrDefault(to));

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.

[nkdengineer]

The To: field is populated if the report is created via Create expense in NewDot

@trjExpensify Do we want to display the blank for this case?

[trjExpensify]

Yeah, we do, otherwise it's a weird inconsistency of NewDot created draft open reports.

[nkdengineer]

Got it, updated proposal.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @nkdengineer 🎉 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 📖

[mountiny]

@nkdengineer Thanks for the proposal, makes sense to me, feel free to raise a PR

[nkdengineer]

@thesahindia The PR is ready for review.

[trjExpensify]

👋 let's make sure we get Applause furnished with the updated expectation for not showing To: on the Reports page for open draft reports.

Particularly, we noticed here that they created a deploy blocker as a result of executing this test. There might be others. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.1.21-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: Hidden shown in the To field in the reports page on draft open reports created #59200

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-04-08. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @thesahindia requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @nkdengineer requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@thesahindia @maddylewis @thesahindia The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[maddylewis]

tomorrow

[maddylewis]

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.

  Link to comment:

• [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:

• [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.

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[maddylewis]

Payments & To-dos

• $250 @thesahindia requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• $250 @nkdengineer requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• Create GH for regression test

[maddylewis]

@thesahindia - does this require a regression test?

[mountiny]

I do not think this requires regression test

[garrettmknight]

$250 approved for @thesahindia