feat: new flow of add-edit expense page #3453
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WalkthroughThe expense splitting functionality in the Changes
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Possibly related PRs
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Sishhhh
requested review from
Dimple16,
hlkavya0213,
arjunaj5 and
Chethan-Fyle
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/app/fyle/add-edit-expense/add-edit-expense-1.spec.ts(10 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: build (12.x)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/app/fyle/add-edit-expense/add-edit-expense-1.spec.ts (1)
Line range hint
1182-1214: Superstar level consolidation of split handlers!The refactoring of multiple split handlers into a single
splitExpenseHandlersimplifies the code. The test coverage looks comprehensive, checking:
- Valid form submission
- Form validation errors
- Pending transaction restrictions
Comment on lines
+683
to
+699
| const splitConfig = { | ||
| category: { | ||
| is_visible: !!expenseFieldObjData.org_category_id, | ||
| value: component.getFormValues().category, | ||
| is_mandatory: expenseFieldObjData.org_category_id?.is_mandatory || false, | ||
| }, | ||
| project: { | ||
| is_visible: !!expenseFieldObjData.project_id, | ||
| value: component.getFormValues().project, | ||
| is_mandatory: expenseFieldObjData.project_id?.is_mandatory || false, | ||
| }, | ||
| costCenter: { | ||
| is_visible: !!expenseFieldObjData.cost_center_id, | ||
| value: component.getFormValues().costCenter, | ||
| is_mandatory: expenseFieldObjData.cost_center_id?.is_mandatory || false, | ||
| }, | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Mind-blowing refactor, but let's make the splitConfig more robust!
The splitConfig object structure looks good, but we can make it even better by extracting it into a reusable interface.
interface SplitFieldConfig {
is_visible: boolean;
value: any;
is_mandatory: boolean;
}
interface SplitConfig {
category: SplitFieldConfig;
project: SplitFieldConfig;
costCenter: SplitFieldConfig;
}
Comment on lines
+1217
to
1252
| it('should get all action sheet options', (done) => { | ||
| orgSettingsService.get.and.returnValue( | ||
| of({ | ||
| ...orgSettingsData, | ||
| expense_settings: { ...orgSettingsData.expense_settings, split_expense_settings: { enabled: true } }, | ||
| }) | ||
| ); | ||
| component.activeCategories$ = of(sortedCategory); | ||
| component.costCenters$ = of(expectedCCdata); | ||
| projectsService.getAllActive.and.returnValue(of(projectsV1Data)); | ||
| component.filteredCategories$ = of(categorieListRes); | ||
| component.txnFields$ = of(expenseFieldObjData); | ||
| component.isCccExpense = 'tx3qHxFNgRcZ'; | ||
| component.canDismissCCCE = true; | ||
| component.isCorporateCreditCardEnabled = true; | ||
| component.canRemoveCardExpense = true; | ||
| component.isExpenseMatchedForDebitCCCE = true; | ||
| spyOn(component, 'splitExpCategoryHandler'); | ||
| spyOn(component, 'splitExpProjectHandler'); | ||
| spyOn(component, 'splitExpCostCenterHandler'); | ||
| spyOn(component, 'splitExpenseHandler'); | ||
| spyOn(component, 'markPersonalHandler'); | ||
| spyOn(component, 'markDismissHandler'); | ||
| spyOn(component, 'removeCCCHandler'); | ||
| launchDarklyService.getVariation.and.returnValue(of(true)); | ||
| fixture.detectChanges(); | ||
|
|
||
| let actionSheetOptions; | ||
|
|
||
| component.getActionSheetOptions().subscribe((res) => { | ||
| actionSheetOptions = res; | ||
| expect(res.length).toEqual(5); | ||
| expect(res.length).toEqual(4); | ||
| expect(orgSettingsService.get).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); | ||
| expect(projectsService.getAllActive).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); | ||
| expect(launchDarklyService.getVariation).toHaveBeenCalledOnceWith( | ||
| 'show_project_mapped_categories_in_split_expense', | ||
| false | ||
| ); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| actionSheetOptions[0].handler(); | ||
| expect(component.splitExpCategoryHandler).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); | ||
| expect(component.splitExpenseHandler).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); | ||
| actionSheetOptions[1].handler(); | ||
| expect(component.splitExpProjectHandler).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); | ||
| actionSheetOptions[2].handler(); | ||
| expect(component.markPersonalHandler).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); | ||
| actionSheetOptions[3].handler(); | ||
| actionSheetOptions[2].handler(); | ||
| expect(component.markDismissHandler).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); | ||
| actionSheetOptions[4].handler(); | ||
| actionSheetOptions[3].handler(); | ||
| expect(component.removeCCCHandler).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); | ||
| expect(component.splitExpCostCenterHandler).not.toHaveBeenCalled(); | ||
| done(); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Action sheet options test needs more power!
While the test covers the basic scenarios, we should add test cases for:
- Error handling when orgSettings call fails
- Edge cases when some action handlers throw errors
Add these test cases:
it('should handle orgSettings error gracefully', (done) => {
orgSettingsService.get.and.returnValue(throwError(() => new Error('Network error')));
component.getActionSheetOptions().subscribe({
error: (err) => {
expect(err.message).toBe('Network error');
done();
}
});
});
it('should handle action handler errors', (done) => {
orgSettingsService.get.and.returnValue(of({
...orgSettingsData,
expense_settings: { split_expense_settings: { enabled: true } }
}));
spyOn(component, 'splitExpenseHandler').and.throwError('Handler error');
component.getActionSheetOptions().subscribe((res) => {
expect(() => res[0].handler()).toThrow('Handler error');
done();
});
});
|
arjunaj5
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
| projects: projects$, | ||
| txnFields: this.txnFields$.pipe(take(1)), | ||
| filteredCategories: this.filteredCategories$.pipe(take(1)), | ||
| showProjectMappedCategoriesInSplitExpense: this.launchDarklyService.getVariation( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will this LD flag be checked in the split expense screen?
Dimple16
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
hlkavya0213
reviewed
Feb 3, 2025
| @@ -709,16 +726,33 @@ export function TestCases1(getTestBed) { | |||
| component.fg.controls.report.setValue(expectedReportsPaginated[0]); | |||
| spyOn(component, 'generateEtxnFromFg').and.returnValue(of(unflattenedExpData)); | |||
| fixture.detectChanges(); | |||
| const splitConfig = { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can't u define this at common place?
Chethan-Fyle
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Clickup
https://app.clickup.com/t/86cxubdrz
New flow of add-edit expense page
Summary by CodeRabbit
openSplitExpenseModalmethod to utilize a streamlined configuration approach.splitExpenseHandler.