fix: Deeplinking expense creation leads to an expense with 0 amount by nkdengineer · Pull Request #57707 · Expensify/App

nkdengineer · 2025-03-03T22:39:12Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #56752
PROPOSAL: #56752 (comment)

Tests

Precondition: On Web or mWeb, submit an expense but stop at the Confirm Details page, copy and send the URL to a chat.

Log in to the account with access to the URL in the conversation
Tap the link
Enter the amount and tap the next
In Confirm Details page, tab the back arrow until you are back to the conversation
Tap the link again
Verify that: User is directed to a new Submit Expense flow.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-mweb.mov

iOS: Native

ios-mweb.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-mweb.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

melvin-bot · 2025-03-05T15:48:22Z

@mananjadhav 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]

mananjadhav · 2025-03-07T07:09:16Z

Code changes look fine. Will have it tested today.

nkdengineer · 2025-03-11T02:54:18Z

bump @mananjadhav

mananjadhav · 2025-03-13T15:52:49Z

I was a bit confused whether we still needed the PR if it's not reproducible (here). I was able to reproduce it a few times, so I think we should still work on it. I'll close it today/tomorrow.

nkdengineer · 2025-03-17T08:43:39Z

bump here @mananjadhav

mananjadhav · 2025-03-21T16:47:24Z

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

android-deep-linking-expense.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome-deep-linking-expense.mov

iOS: Native

ios-deep-linking-expense.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari-deep-linking-expense.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web-deep-linking-expense.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-deep-linking-expense.mov

mananjadhav · 2025-03-25T16:14:40Z

Quick bump on the PR @cead22

OSBotify · 2025-03-26T00:29:06Z

✋ 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 · 2025-03-26T06:13:15Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cead22 in version: 9.1.19-0 🚀

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

nkuoch · 2025-03-26T08:22:01Z

Might be related to deploy blocker #59130 ?

github-actions · 2025-03-27T13:30:24Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.1.19-5 🚀

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

jjcoffee · 2025-04-22T08:22:22Z

+            : transaction?.reportID === reportID;
+
+        // Exit if the transaction already exists and is associated with the current report
+        if (transaction?.transactionID && (!transaction?.isFromGlobalCreate || !isEmptyObject(transaction?.participants)) && isCurrentReportID) {


Coming from #59567, this caused an issue where the send invoice flow turns into a create expense instead. For invoices, isCurrentReportID will be (incorrectly) false because we don't set the first participant of an invoice flow if the participant is not an invoice room.

nkdengineer added 4 commits March 4, 2025 05:38

fix: Deeplinking expense creation leads to an expense with 0 amount

4725dc9

Merge branch 'main' into fix/56752

af7455a

add comment

5d307b9

fix prettier

7f57b78

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review March 5, 2025 15:48

nkdengineer requested a review from a team as a code owner March 5, 2025 15:48

melvin-bot Bot requested review from mananjadhav and removed request for a team March 5, 2025 15:48

mananjadhav approved these changes Mar 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from cead22 March 21, 2025 16:49

cead22 approved these changes Mar 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

cead22 merged commit ca1f4ff into Expensify:main Mar 26, 2025

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-03-26 #59127

Closed

50 tasks

nkuoch mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-04-07] [Due for payment 2025-04-03] [$250] Expense - Amount is cleared when sending to a conversation after creating expense in FAB #59130

Closed

8 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Mar 27, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-04-03] [$125] Create Expense - Deeplinking expense creation leads to an expense with 0 amount #56752

Closed

8 tasks

jjcoffee mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-04-23] [Payment due 25-04-22][$250] Send invoice flow becomes create expense flow #59567

Closed

18 tasks

jjcoffee reviewed Apr 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

QichenZhu mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2025

[Ready for payment 11th Dec][$250] Expense - Next button on amount page reopens amount page instead of confirm page #74733

Closed

16 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: Deeplinking expense creation leads to an expense with 0 amount#57707

fix: Deeplinking expense creation leads to an expense with 0 amount#57707
cead22 merged 4 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
nkdengineer:fix/56752

nkdengineer commented Mar 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Mar 5, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Mar 7, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Mar 11, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Mar 21, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Mar 25, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

nkuoch commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Mar 27, 2025

Uh oh!

jjcoffee Apr 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Mar 3, 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 5, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Mar 7, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Mar 11, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Mar 13, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented Mar 17, 2025

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Mar 21, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

mananjadhav commented Mar 25, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

nkuoch commented Mar 26, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Mar 27, 2025

Uh oh!

jjcoffee Apr 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

nkdengineer commented Mar 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading