[HOLD for payment 2024-08-14] [$250] Dupe detect-Incorrect total amount in the expense report, preview & LHN after deleting offline

[lanitochka17]

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-14] [$250] Dupe detect-Incorrect total amount in the expense report, preview & LHN after deleting offline

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

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

Total amount is incorrect when resolving duplicated transactions.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When merging duplicates, we subtract the current report amount from all the duplicated transaction amounts.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.ts

Lines 7679 to 7692 in df69c80

	const duplicateTransactionTotals = params.transactionIDList.reduce((total, id) => {
	const duplicateTransaction = allTransactions[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${id}`];
	if (!duplicateTransaction) {
	return total;
	}
	return total + duplicateTransaction.amount;
	}, 0);
	const expenseReport = ReportConnection.getAllReports()?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${params.reportID}`];
	const expenseReportOptimisticData: OnyxUpdate = {
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${params.reportID}`,
	value: {
	total: (expenseReport?.total ?? 0) - duplicateTransactionTotals,

However, the duplicated transaction array has duplicated items. When we have transactions 1 and 2, open the 1st transaction thread, and press Keep this one on the 2nd transaction, the duplicated transaction array will be [1, 1].

That's because the array contains the duplicates and also the reviewingTransactionID.

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview/MoneyRequestPreviewContent.tsx

Lines 282 to 283 in df69c80

	const allTransactionIDsDuplicates = [reviewingTransactionID, ...duplicates].filter((id) => id !== transaction?.transactionID);
	Transaction.setReviewDuplicatesKey({...comparisonResult.keep, duplicates: allTransactionIDsDuplicates, transactionID: transaction?.transactionID ?? ''});

reviewingTransactionID is the transaction that we are currently reviewing. From the OP steps, we open transaction 1 and press Review duplicates, so the reviewingTransactionID is 1. duplicates contains the duplicated list of transactions. For example, transaction 1 duplicates list is [2], while transaction 2 duplicates list is [1]. Combined, we get [1, 1].

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

Instead of combining reviewingTransactionID and duplicates, we can just use duplicates.

const allTransactionIDsDuplicates = duplicates;

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Remove duplicated items from the array.

Array.from(new Set(allTransactionIDsDuplicates))

[roryabraham]

weird, I wrote this code and I recall it working as expected when I tested it. Maybe I made a mistake or something else changed since then. Anyways, LGTM 👍🏼

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @roryabraham (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave-collect - Release 2

[roryabraham]

definitely front-end since it's only for optimistic state

[roryabraham]

confirmed that dupe detection is still behind a beta so demoting this.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01bae72e20bb144f65

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @CortneyOfstad (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.

[melvin-bot]

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

[akinwale]

@bernhardoj's proposal works here.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed.

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @roryabraham is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @akinwale 🎉 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

[bernhardoj]

PR is ready

cc: @akinwale

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @muttmuure (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.

[CortneyOfstad]

@muttmuure I am heading OoO until Tuesday (Aug. 6) so reassigning to keep eyes on this in the meantime — thanks!

[melvin-bot]

@akinwale, @CortneyOfstad, @muttmuure, @roryabraham, @bernhardoj Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.17-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• #46555

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-14. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @akinwale requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @bernhardoj requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@akinwale] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@akinwale] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@akinwale] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@akinwale] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@akinwale] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@CortneyOfstad / @muttmuure] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[akinwale]

• [@akinwale] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@akinwale] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@akinwale] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:

This was a regression from #42503. Comment.

• [@akinwale] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@akinwale] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

Regression Test Steps

• Launch Expensify
• Open a workspace chat report
• Submit two similar expenses (same amount, currency and merchant)
• Click on the expense preview in the main chat report
• Click on the first expense
• Go offline
• Click Review duplicates
• Click Keep this one on the second expense
• Click Confirm on the confirmation page
• Navigate back to the expense report
• Verify that the total amount is the same as the selected expense amount
• Navigate back to the main chat report
• Verify that the report preview amount is the same as the selected expense amount
• Navigate back to LHN (on mobile)
• Verify that the total amount in the LHN for the last message is the same as the selected expense amount

Do we agree 👍 or 👎?

[CortneyOfstad]

Payment Summary

@bernhardoj -- to be paid $250 via NewDot
@akinwale -- paid $250 via Upwork

Regression test here