[$250] Pay someone flow doesn’t include a reportAction to distinguish the payment method used (Expensify or elsewhere)

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.4.70-2
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
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: @trjExpensify
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1714729020479179

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: Pay someone with either Expensify or elsewhere option

1. Login as a user who got paid
2. Open the DM and observe the preview for money received
3. Click to open the payment details and observe

Expected Result:

Method of payment displayed in both DM and details page (Expensify or elsewhere)

Actual Result:

Only xyz paid displayed and method of payment not displayed

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~014f39f2dacd55f2a4
• Upwork Job ID: 1787959016608243712
• Last Price Increase: 2024-05-21
• Automatic offers:
• ahmedGaber93 | Reviewer | 102528931
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 102528935

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @ahmedGaber93

[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.

[jainilparikh]

Proposal

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

Payment type is not mentioned in the details page.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We do not have a field for payment type. We only have fields for 'amount', 'comment', 'merchant', 'date', 'category' and 'tag'.

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

Add a new field similar to the one below for 'PaymentType' info:

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Lines 373 to 386 in 951c7b3

	{canUseViolations && <ViolationMessages violations={getViolationsForField('receipt')} />}
	<OfflineWithFeedback pendingAction={getPendingFieldAction('amount')}>
	<MenuItemWithTopDescription
	title={formattedTransactionAmount ? formattedTransactionAmount.toString() : ''}
	shouldShowTitleIcon={isSettled}
	titleIcon={Expensicons.Checkmark}
	description={amountDescription}
	titleStyle={styles.textHeadlineH2}
	interactive={canEditAmount}
	shouldShowRightIcon={canEditAmount}
	onPress={() => Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_AMOUNT.getRoute(CONST.IOU.ACTION.EDIT, iouType, transaction?.transactionID ?? '', report.reportID))}
	brickRoadIndicator={getErrorForField('amount') ? CONST.BRICK_ROAD_INDICATOR_STATUS.ERROR : undefined}
	error={getErrorForField('amount')}
	/>

PaymentType info is available in ParentReportAction array that's passed to this component.

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx

Line 90 in 951c7b3

parentReportActions,

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~014f39f2dacd55f2a4

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @ahmedGaber93 (External)

[jainilparikh]

@ahmedGaber93 , the reportAction does not have any information about how payment is done (Via Expensify or via Elsewhere). This is what we get:

avatarUrl: undefined
chatReportID: "8115357106458061"
chatType: ""
currency: "INR"
description: ""
errorFields: []
fieldList:  undefined
invoiceReceiver:  undefined
iouReportID: undefined
isDeletedParentAction: undefined
isOptimisticReport: undefined
isOwnPolicyExpenseChat: false
isPinned: false
isPolicyExpenseChat: undefined
isWaitingOnBankAccount: false
lastMentionedTime: undefined
lastReadTime: "2024-05-12 05:03:17.881"
lastVisibleActionCreated: "2024-05-12 05:03:17.881"
managerID: 16778387
nonReimbursableTotal: 0
notificationPreference: "always"
oldPolicyName: ""
ownerAccountID: 17102600
parentReportActionID: "189825184571791248"
parentReportID: "8115357106458061"
participantAccountIDs: (2) [16778387, 17102600]
pendingFields: undefined
permissions: (2) ['read', 'write']
policyID: "E1269E8555168358"
policyName: undefined
reportID: "7799079344254003"
reportName: "IOU"
stateNum: 2

Do we first need the BE to send this info in the parentReportActions ?

[sakluger]

Not overdue, we're still discussing the expected behavior.

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[melvin-bot]

@sakluger, @ahmedGaber93 Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[ahmedGaber93]

I checked it today, we already have the paymentType in FE but not with this reportAction, I will complete checking tomorrow to know if we can catch it from FE, or it requires BE changes

[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.

[ahmedGaber93]

Waiting on proposals

[johncschuster]

Posted in #expensify-open-source to drum up proposals

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

Only xyz paid displayed and method of payment not displayed

What is the root cause of that problem?

1. We filter out the send money request action when we combine report actions here

App/src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts

Line 323 in 8375abe

return actionType !== CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.CREATE && actionType !== CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.TRACK && !isSentMoneyReportAction(action);

2. The pay action in this case is send money so even we don't filter out this action in the point 1, it still shows as preview not a pay content.

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItem.tsx

Line 516 in 8375abe

isSendingMoney)

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

1. We shouldn't filter out the send money request action here

return actionType !== CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.CREATE && actionType !== CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.TRACK;

App/src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts

Line 323 in 8375abe

return actionType !== CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.CREATE && actionType !== CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.TRACK && !isSentMoneyReportAction(action);

2. We should remove isSendMoney condition here, so this action can be displayed as pay content instead of a preview. Or we can only display it as preview if the report isn't a combine report but I think it's unnecessary because for send money it's always is a single transaction.

(action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.CREATE ||
action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.SPLIT ||
action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.TRACK)

or

(action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.CREATE ||
action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.SPLIT ||
action.originalMessage.type === CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.TRACK ||
(isSendingMoney && !transactionThreadReport?.reportID))

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItem.tsx

Line 516 in 8375abe

isSendingMoney)

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

Result

Screen.Recording.2024-05-24.at.11.13.52.mov

[ahmedGaber93]

Reviewing today

[ahmedGaber93]

@nkdengineer Thanks for the proposal.

I don't think your RCA is correct, as we already create optimistic pay action CONST.IOU.REPORT_ACTION_TYPE.PAY here

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 5561 to 5564 in 8375abe

	[optimisticIOUReportAction.reportActionID]: {
	...(optimisticIOUReportAction as OnyxTypes.ReportAction),
	pendingAction: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,
	},

[nkdengineer]

@ahmedGaber93 Thanks for your feedback, I updated proposal #41645 (comment)

[ahmedGaber93]

@nkdengineer Thanks for the update.

@nkdengineer's proposal using cancel filtering "send money pay action" in combinedReportActions then display it as a normal message not money request preview in expense report page LGTM.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[ahmedGaber93]

@stitesExpensify please take a look here when you have a time.

[stitesExpensify]

then display it as a normal message not money request preview in expense report page

Can you post screenshots of what it used to look like, and what it will look like now? This seems like a significant design change

[nkdengineer]

@stitesExpensify This will show the message like the result in my proposal here #41645 (comment)

[stitesExpensify]

Okay, I see that now at the end. What does it look like currently?

[nkdengineer]

@stitesExpensify Actually, Nothing is shown in combine report of send money request because the send money action is filtered out.

[stitesExpensify]

So it was never showing money request preview like this comment suggested?

[ahmedGaber93]

So it was never showing money request preview like #41645 (comment)?

@stitesExpensify Yes, It was never showing because we filter it here, but now In this issue, we are going to cancel filtering it because it has the payment method and message we need Paid USD 12.00 elswhere.

The problem now is after cancel filtering it, it will display as money request preview

App/src/libs/ReportActionsUtils.ts

Line 320 in 8375abe

// Filter out request and send money request actions because we don't want to show any preview actions for one transaction reports

so the point 2 in @nkdengineer's solution is to display it as a normal message Paid USD 12.00 elswhere not money request preview.

[stitesExpensify]

Great, thank you both for helping me catch up! Assigning @nkdengineer

[melvin-bot]

📣 @ahmedGaber93 🎉 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]

📣 @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 📖

[nkdengineer]

@ahmedGaber93 The PR is here.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[ahmedGaber93]

@nkdengineer the PR is reverted because of this regression #43183. Can you investigate the issue?

[nkdengineer]

@ahmedGaber93 Coming from #43183 I want to discuss again about the expected behavior because the child report of send money request action is transaction thread report:

1. Not display as combine report for iou report of send money request so send money request action will display as preview and click on this will open the transaction thread report

2. Still display send money request as Paid system message and fix this issue Pay someone - Replies sent to paid system message appear again in transaction thread #43183 to display the child report of send money action as normal thread

I prefer option 1 since the child report is transaction thread report, it doesn't make sense if we display it as a normal thread

Please help to confirm the expected behavior that we want here cc @trjExpensify @stitesExpensify