feat: Receipt Audit Feature / Note type violations.

[Krishna2323]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/36288 PROPOSAL: https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/36288#issuecomment-1936980709

Tests

• [x] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

• [x] 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)
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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).
• [x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• [x] I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • [x] Android: Native
  • [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
  • [x] iOS: Native
  • [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Desktop
• [x] 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)
• [x] I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • [x] If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• [x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• [x] I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• [x] 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)
• [x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• [x] I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• [x] I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• [x] If any new file was added I verified that:
  • [x] 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
• [x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
  • [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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)
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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.
• [x] If the PR modifies the form input styles:
  • [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • [x] I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@sobitneupane 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]

[Krishna2323]

@JmillsExpensify @sobitneupane, the PR is nearly ready for review. However, before that, I have a few things left to implement based on the responses to the following questions.

1. I believe we don't want to show ReceiptAudit component when a receipt is being scanned, is that correct?

2. Do we need to check for beta access before showing ReceiptAudit? We only display ViolationMessages component when beta is enabled for the user.

3. This is how it currently looks. I suppose we want to change the icons here?

[sobitneupane]

the PR is nearly ready for review. However, before that, I have a few things left to implement based on the responses to the following questions.

1. I believe we don't want to show ReceiptAudit component when a receipt is being scanned, is that correct?

I would think so as we do show the scanning info.

2. Do we need to check for beta access before showing ReceiptAudit? We only display ViolationMessages component when beta is enabled for the user.

If we display ViolationMessages only when beta is enabled, than I believe we would like to do the same for ReceiptAudit as well.

3. This is how it currently looks. I suppose we want to change the icons here?

For this, once you add the screen recording and screenshots, we can ask the design team to verify the design and icons.

[JmillsExpensify]

Let's make sure we get a design team member on this PR before it's merged!

[sobitneupane]

@Krishna2323 Can you please add Tests and QA steps. You also need to fill PR Author checklist.

[Krishna2323]

@sobitneupane, I don't know how to generate note type violations, do you have any clue? Test steps will be based on that.

[sobitneupane]

@Krishna2323 If there are any blockers or if you have any confusion, please don't hesitate to raise those concerns. Were you able to test the issue in your end? You need to be in Violations beta to receive those violations from BE.

[shawnborton]

Just a heads up that we're going to have a few design changes to this before it gets merged - nothing major, just updating the badge style to repurpose our existing badge component.

cc @JmillsExpensify @Expensify/design - do we have a final consensus on the updated design yet?

[dannymcclain]

@shawnborton I don't think we do... Looks like based on Figma comments we're still debating between a few options. Should I take it to Slack to try to get final consensus? Or just ping everyone in the Figma comments to try to nail it down?

[shawnborton]

I say take it to Slack - and thanks so much for volunteering! We probably just need to decide between like 2-3 options at this point yeah?

[dannymcclain]

Ok we've settled on a final design for this feature. cc @Expensify/design

@shawnborton just making sure this all looks right to you! Figma file is here.

[shawnborton]

Looks good to me!

We could try it with larger icons above the receipt so that the dot indicator matches the red dot on the push rows below... but I think it might look a little silly next to the smaller label font size. Thoughts?

[dannymcclain]

@shawnborton I think it does look kinda silly haha. You can check these out in Figma: 20px icons (pretty silly), 16px icons (might be ok?), 12px icons (current design).

[shawnborton]

Hah, thanks for exploring that! Yeah, I say we stick with the current plan then!

[Krishna2323]

Will be updating today.

[Krishna2323]

@shawnborton @dannymcclain @sobitneupane , do you have any suggestions on the updated design?

Updated design

@JmillsExpensify, will the backend provide any data regarding the verified status of the receipt? As per the design specifications, we are required to display Receipt • Verified checkmarkIcon text when the receipt is verified. If there are no errors, only the Receipt text should be displayed.

Currently, I have implemented it to display Receipt text when the receipt is being scanned, and Receipt • Verified checkmarkIcon if the receipt is scanned without any note violations. But I guess we shouldn't only rely on note violations because we might have other violations and in that case we shouldn't display Receipt • Verified checkmarkIcon

[sobitneupane]

@Krishna2323 Have you considered https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/36288#issuecomment-1998568643 comments? We would want this feature only for admin/approver in paid workspace

Receipt Audit is only a feature for paid workspaces, so Collect and Control.

[dannymcclain]

@Krishna2323 The screenshots in your comment look great to me.

[sobitneupane]

@Krishna2323 Any update?

[Krishna2323]

Sorry for the delay, will provide updated EOD or tomorrow. Thanks

[JmillsExpensify]

@shawnborton @dannymcclain @sobitneupane , do you have any suggestions on the updated design?

Updated design @JmillsExpensify, will the backend provide any data regarding the verified status of the receipt? As per the design specifications, we are required to display Receipt • Verified checkmarkIcon text when the receipt is verified. If there are no errors, only the Receipt text should be displayed.

Currently, I have implemented it to display Receipt text when the receipt is being scanned, and Receipt • Verified checkmarkIcon if the receipt is scanned without any note violations. But I guess we shouldn't only rely on note violations because we might have other violations and in that case we shouldn't display Receipt • Verified checkmarkIcon

The backend doesn't provide any data to the verified status of the receipt. As you noted, Receipt • Verified checkmarkIcon will display if the receipt is scanned without any note violations. On the flip side, if the receipt is scanned and note violations appear, then Receipt • Issues found should be displayed.

[JmillsExpensify]

What's the ETA for this PR?

[Krishna2323]

@shawnborton @dannymcclain, I'm updating styles for violations messages also to match it with notes messages. WDYT? If we don't update, it will look odd when we have notes and violation message together. Current:

Updates:

1. Increase spacing between receipt and violation message (marginTop: -8 to marginTop: -4)
2. Increased gap between messages by 4px

Prev violations style	New violations style	Notes messages	Notes & Violations together

[shawnborton]

That feels pretty good to me. Can you show us the verified state too?

Also, cc @JmillsExpensify @jamesdeanexpensify but we should get crisp on when a violation/note has a period at the end of the sentence or not. Seems like we're all over the place right now.

[dannymcclain]

The spacing updates feel good to me too. Just so I'm clear though—issues with the receipt will always show above other violation messages right? I think it's important that receipt issues show up as the first items under the image.

[JmillsExpensify]

@shawnborton Woof, yeah I agree. @jamesdeanexpensify we should do a run-through of our period use for both violations and system messages. I have a feeling we're all over the place for both. This would be a good #wave-control initiative.

[JmillsExpensify]

@Krishna2323 Good progress, thank you! What can do to help merge this PR early next week?

[Krishna2323]

Can you show us the verified state too?

@shawnborton

Scanning	Verified

[Krishna2323]

@sobitneupane, could you please review once again 🙏🏻? I think we are very close to merging this.

[shawnborton]

It looks like we use two different kinds of little dot separators for Receipt and Amount - why is that? I would think that they would be the same right?