[HOLD for payment 2023-08-28] Transaction objects for expense data are created with wrong amount

[mountiny]

Problem

The optimistically created transaction objects should have saved amounts as negative numbers in case of the linked report being an expense report. Thats to mirror how the backend stores the data and what the server returns. Once we switch to using the transaction data here #24345 this will cause problems #24345

Additionally when paying money request we are incorrectly creating a new transaction and the original message is incorrect as well not matching to what the backend returns, not sure how this got through for so long 😄

Solution

Remove the redundant code and make sure transactions are created with negative amounts if they are linked to expense reports.

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01b5302916f1fc46d7
• Upwork Job ID: 1691589432405168128
• Last Price Increase: 2023-08-15

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @puneetlath (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01b5302916f1fc46d7

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @sobitneupane is eligible for the Internal assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[JmillsExpensify]

I'll take this as part of wave3

[mountiny]

PR with fix is in a review

[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 1.3.55-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix transaction amount sign and clean up unnecessary pay money request transaction  #24613

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-08-28. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[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:

• [@mountiny] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@mountiny] 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:
• [@mountiny] 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:
• [@mountiny] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@mountiny] 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.
• [@JmillsExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

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

[mountiny]

@situchan has reviewed the PR so they should be eligible to $1000 reward (done before the pricing change)

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @mountiny, @situchan Still overdue 6 days?! Let's take care of this!

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @mountiny, @situchan 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[mountiny]

This is fixed, no need for checklist @JmillsExpensify could you please pay out @situchan $1000 for their work here, thanks!

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @mountiny, @situchan Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @mountiny, @situchan 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @mountiny, @situchan 10 days overdue. I'm getting more depressed than Marvin.

[melvin-bot]

@JmillsExpensify, @mountiny, @situchan 12 days overdue now... This issue's end is nigh!

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 14 days. @JmillsExpensify, @mountiny, @situchan eroding to Weekly issue.

[situchan]

@mountiny to help @JmillsExpensify, can I use additional 1k from #23280 to pay this issue, instead of refund?
cc: @maddylewis (context: #23280 (comment))

[mountiny]

@maddylewis Can you please comment here, you have paid @situchan twice on the linked issue and that covers this issue too and then close it? just for auditing purposes

[maddylewis]

great idea! confirmed that i paid @situchan twice for this issue. we can use that extra payment for this issue!
#23280 (comment)