Adjust condition to access submit button

[cretadn22]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #48778
PROPOSAL: #48778 (comment)

Tests

QA steps section

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

1. Create a workspace
2. Invite a submitter and 2 approvers (both NON-ADMINS)
3. Enable approvals setting Submitter -> submitsTo approver 1 -> forwardsTo approver 2
4. Enable Delay submissions
5. Create an expense as the submitter
6. As the approver 1, submit & approve the report
7. As the approver 2, navigate to the submitter's workspace chat
8. See that the second-level+ non-admin approver should NOT see the 'submit' button.

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

@ikevin127 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]

[ikevin127]

@cretadn22 ⚠️ Looks like you're missing the content for the following checkbox:

• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms

♻️ I will be moving forward with the PR Reviewer Checklist but won't be able to 🟢 Approve until the checked checkboxes are actually completed.

[ikevin127]

@cretadn22 ⚠️ The code looks clean, but I found the following issues while testing the functionality (see below).

Given the following workflow:

Once the submitter (John Krakauer) posts a new expense, this is how it looks on their side:

• the first one I pressed the Submit button
• the second one I did not Submit yet

This is how things look on the 1st Approver's side (K3vin Brian):

This is how things look on the 2nd Approver's side (kevin.bader96+2@gmail.com):

⚠️ The issues are as follows

NOTE: The pictures above and issues mentioned below are were reproduced on an existing workspace already setup and used before.

1. Only the submitter (John Krakauer) is able to actually Submit the expense, approver 1 and 2 while they both see the Submit button, if pressed -> they get BE error.
2. Once the submitter pressed Submit and submitted the expenses, 1st approver doesn't see any buttons on the expense and 2nd approver will see the Approve button.
3. Once the 2nd approver pressed Approve, the 1st approver will see the Approve button which allows them to approve as well.

What happens if we test exactly the same flow with exactly the same workflow member setup ?

1. The approver roles are reversed, meaning that in this case the 1st approver will see the Approve button once the submitter pressed Submit after they posted the expense.
2. If the 1st approver will press Approve on the first expense which was submitted by the submitter, then the Approve button will show up on the 2nd approver's side.
3. For the second expense on which the submitter did not press Submit yet, both approvers see the Submit button which should not be the case for the 2nd (as per this fix).
4. If 2nd approver will press the Submit button, they will get BE error, not being able to submit.
5. If 1st approver will press the Submit button, they are able to submit and now they will have the possibility to Approve.
6. If 1st approver will press Approve -> 2nd approver will be able to approve as well.

Summary

Looks like regardless of being on an already setup and previously used WS , or on a freshly setup WS with exactly the same workflow setup -> in both cases there are issues with the flow as described above.