fix: don't show Pay button to non-admin approvers #60939

nkdengineer · 2025-04-26T08:29:56Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #60722
PROPOSAL: #60722 (comment)

Tests

Create a workspace
Add 2 members with the role user or auditor
Go Workspace settings > work flow > Enable approval
Change the default approver to one of 2 members added in the step 2
As member, submit an expense
Login as approver and approve this expense
Verify that: Pay button isn't displayed

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
- I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
- I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
- I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
- I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
I followed proper code patterns (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
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
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
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
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.
I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2025-04-27T20:19:20Z

@jayeshmangwani 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]

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

jayeshmangwani · 2025-04-28T05:55:39Z

@nkdengineer, adding a test for isPayer here would be good in my opinion. What do you think?

nkdengineer · 2025-04-29T06:30:59Z

@jayeshmangwani i added

jayeshmangwani · 2025-04-29T07:28:34Z

@nkdengineer Tests are failing

jayeshmangwani · 2025-04-30T11:41:42Z

@nkdengineer ⬆️

jayeshmangwani · 2025-04-30T11:43:40Z

Can you update step 2 in Tests to be more explicit? We can't directly set the user as the approver—we have to configure it through workflows.

tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts

trjExpensify · 2025-05-01T12:14:11Z

@nkdengineer can you address the comments today, please? Thanks!

nkdengineer · 2025-05-01T12:15:37Z

Yes, I'm testing some other problems from the tests will give an update today or tomorrow morning.

nkdengineer · 2025-05-02T03:42:55Z

@jayeshmangwani I fixed the test. Instead of replacing isManager with isAdmin we should add isAdmin check belong with isManager

jayeshmangwani · 2025-05-02T05:36:11Z

Can you update step 2 in Tests to be more explicit? We can't directly set the user as the approver—we have to configure it through workflows.

@nkdengineer Just circling back—could you add a bit more detail for Step 2? Specifically, how do you set the approver?

nkdengineer · 2025-05-02T05:39:59Z

@jayeshmangwani Updated the test step.

jayeshmangwani · 2025-05-02T11:31:08Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

            if (!policy?.achAccount?.reimburser) {
-                return isManager;
+                return isAdmin && isManager;


@puneetlath, do we have any context on OldDot for this specific condition?
If there's no reimburser, is it necessary to check both isAdmin && isManager, or is just the isAdmin check sufficient here?

cc: @nkdengineer

Oh sorry, just seeing this comment. Hm, I think in OldDot all admins see the ability to mark the report as reimbursed. Right @heyjennahay? So I think just the isAdmin check should be sufficient.

@nkdengineer can we update this based on Jenna's comment below?

@puneetlath I updated.

jayeshmangwani · 2025-05-02T11:53:23Z

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: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

jayeshmangwani · 2025-05-04T06:57:48Z

@puneetlath, before merging the PR, is it possible to test this PR with the user who originally encountered it? From the screenshot, it looks like Jon is able to reproduce the issue.

When I tested the app on staging using the Tests steps, the Pay button also didn’t appear for the approver. So I’m not confident we can rely solely on the PR’s tests.

nkdengineer · 2025-05-04T12:22:21Z

Agree with @jayeshmangwani, we need the user who has the data to confirm this bug is fixed.

github-actions · 2025-05-06T16:17:15Z

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

puneetlath · 2025-05-06T17:30:11Z

It does seem to work. Here's a report that is showing me the Pay button on staging (but shouldn't be).

And then here's that same report on the ad-hoc build.

jayeshmangwani · 2025-05-06T18:11:47Z

It does seem to work. Here's a report that is showing me the Pay button on staging (but shouldn't be).

Great, we're all set to merge.

jayeshmangwani

LGTM 🚀

puneetlath · 2025-05-06T18:16:13Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

            if (!policy?.achAccount?.reimburser) {
-                return isManager;
+                return isAdmin && isManager;


Oh sorry, just seeing this comment. Hm, I think in OldDot all admins see the ability to mark the report as reimbursed. Right @heyjennahay? So I think just the isAdmin check should be sufficient.

puneetlath · 2025-05-06T18:18:53Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

            const isReimburser = session?.email === policy?.achAccount?.reimburser;
-            return isReimburser && (isApproved || isManager);
+            return isReimburser && (isApproved || isAdmin);


Hm, I'm not sure about this scenario being changed. I think what it is meant to do is:

If I am not the reimburser, but I am the manager, then I can approve it

If I am the reimburser, and I am the manager, then I can pay it (which will also approve it)

If I am neither the reimburser nor the manager, no matter whether I'm an admin or not, then I can't approve or pay it. I have to wait for it to be approved.

@puneetlath Do you mean we should check (isAdmin && isManger) here?

There is some weirdness in OldDot but yes ideally all Admins should have the ability to mark a report as reimbursed

@nkdengineer I think the original logic was right. Is changing it necessary for fixing the bug?

Or maybe I'm not understanding the scenario when we would hit this condition. Can you explain it to me?

@puneetlath Please help to clarify here, do we want to keep the current behavior on main here or update like this?

And reimburser isn't an admin right?

They are an admin.

@puneetlath To clarify, I want to ask the data of the result you showed here. What is the reimbursementChoice of the policy, the user who is viewing the report is an admin or not and is the user the reimburser of the policy?

Ah the policy is set to direct reimbursement and has a reimburser. The person taking the screenshot (me) is not an admin or reimburser on the policy. Just a regular approver.

@puneetlath Thanks for your information, I think we can keep this condition as it is on main. I updated it, please help to verify this result is still the same.

github-actions · 2025-05-07T18:54:51Z

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

github-actions · 2025-05-07T18:58:54Z

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

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
Android 🤖🔄	iOS 🍎🔄


Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
❌ FAILED ❌	https://60939.pr-testing.expensify.com
The QR code can't be generated, because the Desktop build failed

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

github-actions · 2025-05-10T00:04:30Z

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

github-actions · 2025-05-10T00:08:26Z

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

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
Android 🤖🔄	iOS 🍎🔄


Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
❌ FAILED ❌	https://60939.pr-testing.expensify.com
The QR code can't be generated, because the Desktop build failed

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

puneetlath

Tested and it seems to work correctly.

OSBotify · 2025-05-12T17:30:51Z

✋ 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 · 2025-05-13T18:21:32Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.1.45-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-05-13T19:31:57Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.1.45-0 🚀

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

github-actions · 2025-05-15T19:00:25Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.1.45-21 🚀

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

nkdengineer added 2 commits April 26, 2025 15:28

fix: don't show Pay button to non-admin approvers

7fdb1ae

remove useless code

e1fb3f0

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review April 27, 2025 20:19

nkdengineer requested a review from a team as a code owner April 27, 2025 20:19

melvin-bot bot requested a review from jayeshmangwani April 27, 2025 20:19

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team April 27, 2025 20:19

jayeshmangwani reviewed Apr 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

nkdengineer added 3 commits April 29, 2025 10:00

Merge branch 'main' into fix/60722

4ab6498

fix comment

4a819f2

add test for isPayer

f8db61b

jayeshmangwani reviewed Apr 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

nkdengineer added 3 commits May 2, 2025 09:57

Merge branch 'main' into fix/60722

cde01da

update logic check manger belong with isAdmin

d2614f5

fix search util test

8a6a4d1

Merge branch 'main' into fix/60722

db9faae

jayeshmangwani reviewed May 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

resolve conflict

77463ec

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

jayeshmangwani approved these changes May 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from puneetlath May 6, 2025 18:12

puneetlath reviewed May 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

nkdengineer added 4 commits May 7, 2025 12:35

Merge branch 'main' into fix/60722

df03e4d

update mark as reimburser to all admin

d6382d0

update to previous condition

34c3f28

update comment

9e0803d

puneetlath approved these changes May 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

puneetlath merged commit 8c54669 into Expensify:main May 12, 2025
17 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 13, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-05-13 #61917

Closed

sonialiap mentioned this pull request May 26, 2025

[Hold for payment 2025-05-26] [$250] Don't show Pay button to non-admin approvers for in-direct payment #60722

Open

fix: don't show Pay button to non-admin approvers #60939

fix: don't show Pay button to non-admin approvers #60939

Uh oh!

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Apr 26, 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 Apr 27, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Apr 28, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented May 1, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented May 1, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented May 2, 2025

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented May 2, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented May 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented May 2, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented May 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented May 4, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented May 6, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

puneetlath commented May 6, 2025

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani commented May 6, 2025

Uh oh!

jayeshmangwani left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nkdengineer commented Apr 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jayeshmangwani commented May 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading