[HOLD for payment 2024-04-15] DEV: In the Request money modal amount is prefilled with 0.00

[m-natarajan]

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: Main
Reproducible in staging?: n/a
Reproducible in production?: n/a
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: @mountiny
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1712168648612729

Action Performed:

1. Open app
2. Click on "Request money"
3. Observe the Big number pad

Expected Result:

Amount is not prefilled

Actual Result:

the request money modal amount is pre-filled with 0.00 and you have to delete those 0 to be able to write your desired amount in

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

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

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

[MelvinBot]

This has been labelled "Needs Reproduction". Follow the steps here: https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/16989

[Nodebrute]

@abzokhattab I believe this might be a regression stemming from your PR. Could you please confirm?

[abzokhattab]

@Nodebrute Correct. we thought this would be fine to have. but i agree we need to change this for a smoother UX.

let me know what you think @dangrous @eVoloshchak , and if we need to have a special handling for the zero value then.

[mountiny]

I think this is pretty back UX so we should revert or find a fix quickly which I feel like will be hard to do while maintaining cross-platform appraoch

[dangrous]

Honestly I went back and forth, I see it both ways. It's good to have a second opinion! I think if you think it's best to revert and then regroup on the original PR/issue, then that makes sense to me. Since I'm still on leave officially, do you think you can work to get that done shortly? I can keep checking in though!

[eVoloshchak]

We reverted the PR in #39610, this can be closed and we'll continue work In #34894

[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.

[mountiny]

thanks for the revert @eVoloshchak

@dangrous we can definitely reassign that issue, feel free to do so

[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.

[greg-schroeder]

Closing per #39537 (comment)

[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 1.4.60-13 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Revert "35797-preserving-the-transactions-amounts-the-same-as-entered" #39610

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-04-15. 🎊

[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.
• [@greg-schroeder] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: