fix: incorrect next step message when approval mode enabled #57985

daledah · 2025-03-07T07:32:49Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #57574
PROPOSAL: #57574 (comment)

Tests

Add a member to WS
Go to Workflows, disable Delayed submission, and change approver to the added member
Go offline
Go to expense chat and create a manual expense
Open the expense report
Verify that: The next step message shows "Waiting for .... to approve the expense(s)"

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Add a member to WS
Go to Workflows, disable Delayed submission, and change approver to the added member
Go offline
Go to expense chat and create a manual expense
Open the expense report
Verify that: The next step message shows "Waiting for .... to approve the expense(s)"

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-03-07.at.14.06.22.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-03-07.at.14.07.31.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-03-07.at.14.08.49.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-03-07.at.14.11.07.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-03-07.at.14.12.44.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-03-07.at.14.13.52.mov

melvin-bot · 2025-03-07T07:54:13Z

@suneox 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]

suneox · 2025-03-10T06:13:13Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
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 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- 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.ts 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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
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

Screen.Recording.2025-03-10.at.13.06.46.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-03-10.at.13.06.46.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-03-10.at.13.00.15.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-03-10.at.12.53.58.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-03-09.at.22.46.04.mp4

Advance approval

Screen.Recording.2025-03-10.at.13.30.15.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-03-10.at.12.50.08.mp4

suneox · 2025-03-10T06:35:12Z

tests/unit/NextStepUtilsTest.ts

@@ -578,6 +578,38 @@ describe('libs/NextStepUtils', () => {
                    expect(result).toMatchObject(optimisticNextStep);
                });
            });
+
+            test('approval mode enabled', () => {


Could you please add more test case for advance approval mode?

daledah · 2025-03-11T11:45:26Z

@suneox I discovered a bug while adding the test: The next to approve is oneself but the message shows other:

I'll investigate and update soon.

suneox · 2025-03-11T15:44:12Z

@suneox I discovered a bug while adding the test: The next to approve is oneself but the message shows other:

Note to test the advanced approval flow.

Screen.Recording.2025-03-10.at.13.30.15.mov

daledah · 2025-03-14T06:46:12Z

I'm still investigating, will update today.

daledah · 2025-03-17T02:20:00Z

@suneox

Sorry for the delay. After some lookups and testings, seems like the bug is from another flow not related to changes in this issue. BE also send incorrect next step data

So I believe it's out of scope and we should address the bug in another issue.

suneox · 2025-03-17T03:11:19Z

@daledah Could you please provide the steps to reproduce this case? I’ve tested it, and both the basic and advanced approval flows are working as expected in my screenshot/video checklist. And could you please merge with the latest main branch? I’ll verify it again.

daledah · 2025-03-17T07:22:52Z

@suneox Here are the steps:

Invite an admin to WS
In workflows, click on default approval flow
Click on Additional approver, select the invited admin
Go to WS chat, create an expense and submit it

Expected: Next step should be "Waiting for you to approve approve expense(s)", because there's an "approve" button.
Actual: Next step is "Waiting for other admin to approve expense(s)"

suneox · 2025-03-17T14:14:04Z

@suneox Here are the steps:

Invite an admin to WS

In workflows, click on default approval flow

Click on Additional approver, select the invited admin

Go to WS chat, create an expense and submit it

@daledah Could you please provide more details about which member is involved at step 3 when the following members submit expenses?

Expected: Next step should be "Waiting for you to approve approve expense(s)", because there's an "approve" button. Actual: Next step is "Waiting for other admin to approve expense(s)"

Based on your expected result, it looks incorrect because, at step 3: select the invited admin, so the next step should refer to the invited admin instead of you.

daledah · 2025-03-18T07:19:06Z

@suneox In a multi-approver flow like this one:

User who submit expense will be approved by da, then approved by Daledah. The same happens if da submits expense.

However when da submits, Approve button shows up (correct behavior), but next step says Daledah to approve next:

suneox · 2025-03-26T12:43:49Z

@suneox In a multi-approver flow like this one:

I can’t reproduce on the latest main, so we can go ahead with this change. @daledah could you please add a unit test for the advanced approval flow case?

daledah · 2025-03-28T08:30:45Z

@suneox Sorry for the delay, I'll udpate soon.

daledah · 2025-03-31T08:05:47Z

@suneox I updated.

suneox

Works as expected after merging latest main

Screen.Recording.2025-04-01.at.21.54.05.mp4

robertjchen

Perfect, thanks!

OSBotify · 2025-04-01T16:17:36Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

github-actions · 2025-04-03T16:10:15Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/robertjchen in version: 9.1.23-1 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-04-07T20:31:04Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.1.23-7 🚀

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

fix: incorrect next step message when approval mode enabled

3052eda

daledah marked this pull request as ready for review March 7, 2025 07:54

daledah requested a review from a team as a code owner March 7, 2025 07:54

melvin-bot bot requested review from suneox and removed request for a team March 7, 2025 07:54

daledah mentioned this pull request Mar 7, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-04-14] [$250] Next Steps - Incorrect next steps is shown when submitting expense offline. #57574

Closed

8 tasks

suneox reviewed Mar 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/57574

4c59392

daledah added 2 commits March 31, 2025 14:37

Merge branch 'main' into fix/57574

0954354

test: add test case for advanced approval mode

2814965

suneox approved these changes Apr 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from robertjchen April 1, 2025 15:22

robertjchen approved these changes Apr 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

robertjchen merged commit 62360e1 into Expensify:main Apr 1, 2025
17 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Apr 3, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-04-03 #59590

Closed

86 tasks

fix: incorrect next step message when approval mode enabled #57985

fix: incorrect next step message when approval mode enabled #57985

Uh oh!

Conversation

daledah commented Mar 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 7, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

suneox Mar 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

daledah commented Mar 11, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 11, 2025

Uh oh!

daledah commented Mar 14, 2025

Uh oh!

daledah commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

daledah commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

daledah commented Mar 18, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

daledah commented Mar 28, 2025

Uh oh!

daledah commented Mar 31, 2025

Uh oh!

suneox left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

robertjchen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 1, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 3, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

daledah commented Mar 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

suneox commented Mar 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

suneox commented Mar 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading