Make SearchMoneyRequestReportPage show single transaction view correctly #59735

SzymczakJ · 2025-04-07T14:03:54Z

Explanation of Change

This PR changes the way we show single expense reports on SearchMoneyRequestReportPage. When report has only one expense on it we show it like we did on chat page, instead of showing transaction list with only one item.

To accomplish that we use the ReportActionsView component which originally lives as a part of ReportScreen and we render it conditionally in case when there's only one IOU type reportAction in the report.

Fixed Issues

$ #59459 (One-expense report view)
$ #59295 (No option to add expense if report is created offline)
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Note: to test all of these fixes you have to have tableReportView permission

Create new report with "Create report" FAB button.
Add the expense to report by using "Add expense" button in the composer.
Make sure that page looks like single transaction view from inbox

4. Check, if this page has all functionalities of single transaction view from inbox. 5. Add another expense by using "Add expense" button. 6. Make sure that the view changed to list view with two expenses.

Additionally test if "No option to add expense if report is created offline" is not longer reproducible.

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as tests.

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ea6e8f5-2e29-448e-bdce-7d3d4d6f4fe3

Android: mWeb Chrome

androidWeb.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

iosweb.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

SzymczakJ · 2025-04-08T08:09:50Z

The change to show single transaction view instead of a list with one expense is pretty smooth, but we got one problem left:

Recently we made some changes on BE, so that when we use openReport on SearchMoneyRequestReportPage it returns a paginated list of reportActions starting from the oldest action.
This becomes a problem, when we want to have the old way to show reports with single expense.

This view is implemented with the assumption that openReport returns a paginated list of reportActions starting from the newest action which creates a conflict with a new way openReport works.

To solve this problem, we need BE to:

return paginated list of reportActions starting from the newestAction, when report has only one transaction,
return paginated list of reportActions starting from the newestAction, in all other cases
Unfortunately, we cannot solve this just by passing a prop to openReport API call, because when we enter a report we don't know, if that report has only one transaction or more, or is a empty report.
cc @mountiny @luacmartins

mountiny · 2025-04-08T10:37:45Z

Yeah that makes sense, will look into updating the BE but i dont think e have to hold as its super rare for the report to have more than 50 report actions if there is a single expense on it.

It works fine in your testing right?

SzymczakJ · 2025-04-08T11:05:28Z

its super rare for the report to have more than 50 report actions

Yeah I was about to say it doesn't need any hold, because of that. It tests well on my side.

sumo-slonik · 2025-04-08T13:57:56Z

src/components/MoneyRequestReportView/MoneyRequestReportView.tsx

+                }
+                return acc;
+            }, 0) === 1,
+        [reportActions],


const shouldUseSingleTransactionView = useMemo(() => { const iouActionsCount = reportActions.filter( action => action.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU ).length; return iouActionsCount === 1; }, [reportActions]);

Don’t you think that filter would work the same way and be easier to understand? I generally like reduce, but I feel like it might be harder for some people to read.

sumo-slonik · 2025-04-08T14:00:20Z

src/components/MoneyRequestReportView/MoneyRequestReportView.tsx

@@ -118,6 +132,26 @@ function MoneyRequestReportView({report, policy, reportMetadata, shouldDisplayRe
        return;
    }

+    if (isLoadingApp) {


I think it's great that you used an early return here instead of a ternary — it really improves readability.

luacmartins · 2025-04-08T20:17:40Z

Yeah that makes sense, will look into updating the BE but i dont think e have to hold as its super rare for the report to have more than 50 report actions if there is a single expense on it.

I agree. @mountiny are you taking this one?

melvin-bot · 2025-04-09T07:39:58Z

@DylanDylann 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]

github-actions · 2025-04-09T10:43:19Z

🚧 @mountiny has triggered a test app build. You can view the workflow run here.

github-actions · 2025-04-09T11:25:20Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
Android 🤖🔄	iOS 🍎🔄
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/59735-hybrid/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/59735-hybrid/index.html

Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/59735/NewExpensify.dmg	https://59735.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

allgandalf · 2025-04-09T16:44:00Z

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.2025-04-09.at.10.30.38.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-04-09.at.10.26.39.PM.mov

iOS: Native

ScreenRecording_04-09-2025.22-35-39_1.MP4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-04-09.at.10.34.12.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-04-09.at.10.22.53.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-04-09.at.10.34.45.PM.mov

allgandalf

works in offline mode as well

luacmartins

LGTM

mountiny

Thank you, changes look good to me

mountiny · 2025-04-10T09:28:17Z

I agree. @mountiny are you taking this one?

Yes

mountiny · 2025-04-10T09:49:41Z

@martasudol is going to review this one too just a sec

martasudol · 2025-04-10T10:08:49Z

Looks good to me also 🚀

SzymczakJ · 2025-04-10T10:38:29Z

Let's get this merged then! It's blocking some of our other work.

OSBotify · 2025-04-10T11:08:50Z

✋ 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 · 2025-04-11T00:51:55Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.1.27-0 🚀

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

DylanDylann · 2025-04-14T08:37:00Z

src/components/MoneyRequestReportView/MoneyRequestReportView.tsx

+                    report={report}
+                    policy={policy}
+                    reportActions={reportActions}
+                    transactionThreadReportID={undefined}


@SzymczakJ @allgandalf Is there any reason why we pass undefined here? Or this is a mistake

Coming from: #60079

I think it is a mistake. In fact, this is probably something that we forgot to add, because this transactionThreadReportID has been undefined, since the creation of this file.
Adding transactionThreadReportID might solve the issue.

github-actions · 2025-04-16T22:13:04Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.1.28-15 🚀

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

SzymczakJ added 3 commits April 4, 2025 17:10

add single transaction view to MoneyRequestReportView

0492dc8

Merge branch 'main' into @szymczak/money-request-single-transaction

e43f322

add code explanation comment

c89bf11

Merge branch 'main' into @szymczak/money-request-single-transaction

ad749ec

fix not able to create expense in offline created report

4a9aa6b

sumo-slonik approved these changes Apr 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix PR comments

33f6b0a

Kicu mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2025

Reports - App does not return to initial Reports view after deleting all the expenses #58812

Closed

8 tasks

SzymczakJ added 3 commits April 9, 2025 09:32

change shouldUseSingleTransactionView condition to work on transactions

2421215

fix typecheck

fdf60ae

Merge branch 'main' into @szymczak/money-request-single-transaction

4f35763

SzymczakJ marked this pull request as ready for review April 9, 2025 07:39

SzymczakJ requested a review from a team as a code owner April 9, 2025 07:39

melvin-bot bot requested review from DylanDylann and removed request for a team April 9, 2025 07:39

SzymczakJ mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-04-23] [Due for payment 2025-04-16] [Report Creation UI] Follow up tasks #59295

Closed

7 tasks

mountiny assigned SzymczakJ Apr 9, 2025

allgandalf approved these changes Apr 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from mountiny April 9, 2025 17:07

luacmartins approved these changes Apr 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny approved these changes Apr 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 9629c30 into Expensify:main Apr 10, 2025
18 of 19 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-04-11 #60076

Closed

33 tasks

DylanDylann reviewed Apr 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Apr 16, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-05-14] [Better Expense Report View] Report view follow-ups #59459

Closed

16 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Make SearchMoneyRequestReportPage show single transaction view correctly #59735

Make SearchMoneyRequestReportPage show single transaction view correctly #59735

SzymczakJ commented Apr 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

SzymczakJ commented Apr 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Apr 8, 2025

SzymczakJ commented Apr 8, 2025

sumo-slonik Apr 8, 2025

sumo-slonik Apr 8, 2025

luacmartins commented Apr 8, 2025

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 9, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 9, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 9, 2025

allgandalf commented Apr 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

allgandalf left a comment

luacmartins left a comment

mountiny left a comment

mountiny commented Apr 10, 2025

mountiny commented Apr 10, 2025

martasudol commented Apr 10, 2025

SzymczakJ commented Apr 10, 2025

OSBotify commented Apr 10, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 11, 2025

DylanDylann Apr 14, 2025

SzymczakJ Apr 14, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 16, 2025

Make SearchMoneyRequestReportPage show single transaction view correctly #59735

Make SearchMoneyRequestReportPage show single transaction view correctly #59735

Conversation

SzymczakJ commented Apr 7, 2025 • edited Loading

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

SzymczakJ commented Apr 8, 2025 • edited Loading

mountiny commented Apr 8, 2025

SzymczakJ commented Apr 8, 2025

sumo-slonik Apr 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sumo-slonik Apr 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luacmartins commented Apr 8, 2025

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 9, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 9, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 9, 2025

allgandalf commented Apr 9, 2025 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

allgandalf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny commented Apr 10, 2025

mountiny commented Apr 10, 2025

martasudol commented Apr 10, 2025

SzymczakJ commented Apr 10, 2025

OSBotify commented Apr 10, 2025

github-actions bot commented Apr 11, 2025

DylanDylann Apr 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SzymczakJ Apr 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Apr 16, 2025

SzymczakJ commented Apr 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

SzymczakJ commented Apr 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

allgandalf commented Apr 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading