[HOLD for payment 2024-02-26] [HOLD for payment 2024-01-26] [HOLD for payment 2024-01-25] Cancel payment - Inconsistency in reimbursement message after cancelling payment

[lanitochka17]

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: 1.4.26-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
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: Applause - Internal Team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Go to workspace chat
2. Create a manual request
3. Open expense preview
4. Pay elsewhere the report
5. Refresh the page
6. Note that the reimbursement message is "You marked this report as manually reimbursed. This report will be reimbursed outside of Expensify."
7. Click 3-dot menu > Cancel payment
8. Refresh the page

Expected Result:

The reimbursement message will remain the same

Actual Result:

The reimbursement message changes to "You marked this report as reimbursed."

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

Bug6345744_1705522256680.bandicam_2024-01-18_00-25-22-004.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

[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.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @blimpich (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[lanitochka17]

#wave6-collect-submitters

[blimpich]

Not a blocker.

[blimpich]

Probably related to #33836. CC: @Gonals

[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 1.4.26-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Revert "Merge pull request #33836 from Expensify/alberto-unpay2" #34697

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-01-25. 🎊

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.27-1 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Revert "Merge pull request #33836 from Expensify/alberto-unpay2" #34697

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-01-26. 🎊

[blimpich]

not overdue, waiting for automation to close

[blimpich]

not overdue, waiting for PR to close

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.42-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Cancel Payment command (again and again) #34719

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-02-26. 🎊

[melvin-bot]

Skipping the payment summary for this issue since all the assignees are employees or vendors. If this is incorrect, please manually add the payment summary SO.

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @blimpich eroding to Monthly issue.

P.S. Is everyone reading this sure this is really a near-term priority? Be brave: if you disagree, go ahead and close it out. If someone disagrees, they'll reopen it, and if they don't: one less thing to do!

[blimpich]

Closing as the fix for this was deployed.