App icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
App copied to clipboard
verified publisher icon Expensify

Update correct next approver with category/tag rules

Open nkdengineer opened this issue 1 year ago • 22 comments

Explanation of Change

  • [x] Update getApprovalChain to include category/tag rule approvers
  • [x] getNextApproverAccountID already works as expected

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/52458 PROPOSAL:

Tests

Precondition:

  • The workspace's rules are enabled, and the approval mode is ADVANCE
  • Has 4 approvers and 1 submitter
  • Setting two category approver rules (CAT1 and CAT2) for two approvers (approver 1 and approver 2) and two tag approver rules (TAG1 and TAG2) for two approvers (approver 3 and approver 4)
  1. [Submitter]: Submit 4 expenses that include categories CAT1 and CAT2, tags TAG1 and TAG2
  2. [Submitter]: Submit the expense report and verify that the next approver is the approver 1
  3. [Approver1]: Approve the expense and verify that the next approver is the approver 2
  4. [Approver2]: Approve the expense and verify that the next approver is the approver 3
  5. [Approver3]: Approve the expense and verify that the next approver is the approver 4
  6. [Approver4]: Approve the expense and verify that the next step is waiting admin for payment
  • [x] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]." Precondition:

  • The workspace's rules are enabled, and the approval mode is ADVANCE
  • Has 4 approvers and 1 submitter
  • Setting two category approver rules (CAT1 and CAT2) for two approvers (approver 1 and approver 2) and two tag approver rules (TAG1 and TAG2) for two approvers (approver 3 and approver 4)
  1. [Submitter]: Submit 4 expenses that include categories CAT1 and CAT2, tags TAG1 and TAG2
  2. [Submitter]: Submit the expense report and verify that the next approver is the approver 1
  3. [Approver1]: Approve the expense and verify that the next approver is the approver 2
  4. [Approver2]: Approve the expense and verify that the next approver is the approver 3
  5. [Approver3]: Approve the expense and verify that the next approver is the approver 4
  6. [Approver4]: Approve the expense and verify that the next step is waiting admin for payment
  • [x] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • [x] I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • [x] I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • [x] I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • [x] I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • [x] I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • [x] I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • [x] 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)
    • [x] 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).
  • [x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • [x] I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • [x] Android: Native
    • [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
    • [x] iOS: Native
    • [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
    • [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • [x] MacOS: Desktop
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • [x] 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)
    • [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • [x] 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.
    • [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
      • [x] 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:
    • [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • [x] 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)
    • [x] 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.
    • [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • [x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • [x] I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • [x] 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
  • [x] I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • [x] If any new file was added I verified that:
    • [x] 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
  • [x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
    • [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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:
    • [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • [x] I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/34fb2353-655f-40ce-88db-d2b3d4a550c6

Android: mWeb Chrome

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/85d22fd8-4b5f-4750-8d75-7a9a4d2104d5

iOS: Native

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/de64e02e-8921-4d0a-9b1a-3ae96e063746

iOS: mWeb Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/24f24600-7e31-45fa-b7f9-28ffaebe3fc2

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/25921685-eebc-4104-b3ab-ce9940fbb6b7

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a5408778-9fe9-4717-af2c-a1a8c2586197

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/16c60d7e-1388-4b03-a514-66e09f65ad07

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/21eace33-6a23-416f-9a66-c149ba0cfe28

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a0c3e98f-e97f-4464-bc6d-79b012edbf94

MacOS: Desktop

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f43bc32e-1db7-4c3a-a9ef-4a6e9ce08e9e

nkdengineer avatar Nov 14 '24 09:11 nkdengineer

I spent a lot of time today fixing the backend, PR is up - but I didn't get to test your front end changes, sorry - if you can't find a bug with the correct approver when there's multiple category approvers, that's great! I will try to reproduce the issue i found on Monday 🙏

Beamanator avatar Nov 15 '24 15:11 Beamanator

Got it, no problem.

nkdengineer avatar Nov 15 '24 16:11 nkdengineer

@ntdiary 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]

melvin-bot[bot] avatar Nov 26 '24 05:11 melvin-bot[bot]

Reviewer Checklist

  • [x] I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
  • [x] I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • [x] I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
    • [x] I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
    • [x] I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
    • [x] I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • [x] 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)
  • [x] I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
  • [x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • [x] I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • [x] Android: Native
    • [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
    • [x] iOS: Native
    • [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
    • [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • [x] MacOS: Desktop
  • [x] If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
  • [x] I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
    • [x] 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).
    • [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • [x] 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.
    • [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • [x] 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)
    • [x] 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.
    • [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • [x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • [x] I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • [x] I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
  • [x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • [x] I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • [x] If a new component is created I verified that:
    • [x] A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
    • [x] All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
    • [x] The file is named correctly
    • [x] The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
    • [x] The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
    • [x] For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
    • [x] Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
    • [x] All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
    • [x] The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
  • [x] If any new file was added I verified that:
    • [x] 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
  • [x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
    • [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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:
    • [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • [x] I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native 52537-android-native-submit 52537-android-native-approve-cat_1 52537-android-native-approve-cat_2 52537-android-native-approve-tag_3 52537-android-native-approve-tag_4
Android: mWeb Chrome 52537-android-chrome-submit 52537-android-chrome-approve-cat_1 52537-android-chrome-approve-cat_2 52537-android-chrome-approve-tag_3 52537-android-chrome-approve-tag_4
iOS: Native 52537-ios-native-submit 52537-ios-native-approve-cat_1 52537-ios-native-approve-cat_2 52537-ios-native-approve-tag_3 52537-ios-native-approve-tag_4
iOS: mWeb Safari 52537-ios-safari-submit 52537-ios-safari-approve-cat_1 52537-ios-safari-approve-cat_2 52537-ios-safari-approve-tag_3 52537-ios-safari-approve-tag_4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7f967232-a287-4b09-b9c1-5bc41b387a46

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9ea6c1ac-3220-4f8e-8368-3bb3432640b2

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/493f3dd0-e65f-4fad-8c2d-90aae08d465b

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/61b3f05d-6e1b-4a1f-bebd-accede6d2844

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/97797ebf-af45-4bb7-a93d-f8fcd935d5b3

MacOS: Desktop 52537-mac-desktop-submit 52537-mac-desktop-approve-cat_1 52537-mac-desktop-approve-cat_2 52537-mac-desktop-approve-tag_3 52537-mac-desktop-approve-tag_4

ntdiary avatar Nov 27 '24 15:11 ntdiary

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b6da794c-a4f7-4a4f-9c0e-3f071a541609

Maybe this should be fixed as a frontend bug: When no.4 approves, the frontend optimistic message shows no further action required!, but the correct backend data is waiting for no.25 to approve. (no.25 is policy owner) What do you think? cc @nkdengineer @Beamanator

ntdiary avatar Nov 27 '24 16:11 ntdiary

@ntdiary Is this reproducible on the latest main? If yes, I think we should fix it as a separate issue.

nkdengineer avatar Nov 27 '24 16:11 nkdengineer

@ntdiary Is this reproducible on the latest main? If yes, I think we should fix it as a separate issue.

The reason I'm asking here, is if we don't fix it, we can't achieve the expected behavior in the OP (step 12 offline):

[1] Expected Result:

  1. Confirm the second approver is Approver B (both offline & online)
  2. As Approver B, approve the report
  3. Confirm the third approver is workspace owner (both offline & online)
  4. As WS owner, approve and confirm that the report is final approved.

Additionally, this problem is introduced by PR #51196, the execution chain is: approveMoneyRequest → getApprovalChain → getSubmitToEmail → getSubmitToAccountID. When approving, if there is a category approver in the chain, the first item in the chain was always the category approver, which caused the optimisticNextStep calculation to be incorrect.

BTW, when building the approval chain, I think Set may be more appropriate and simple than Array, as the elements are unique and ordered. If we don't want to make many changes, we can still return Array, since the conv is also quite simple:

const chain = new Set<String>()
approvers.forEach(el => chain.add(el))

chain.delete(submitterEmail)

a = new Set([1,3,2,4,3,2])
return [...a]

Finally, if needed, maybe we could increase the bounty for this issue, since it really involves quite multiple cases that need to be considered. :)

ntdiary avatar Nov 28 '24 11:11 ntdiary

I definitely think it's fair to bump the bounty on this one, it's a pretty complicated issue that we're trying to get perfect 👍

@ntdiary are you waiting on me or @nkdengineer to look at your latest message?

BTW I'm making sure a transaction inserted date gets back to Onyx, that should be ready in staging tomorrow at some point 🙏

Beamanator avatar Dec 03 '24 22:12 Beamanator

@ntdiary are you waiting on me or @nkdengineer to look at your latest message?

@Beamanator, I’m waiting for the new sorting implementation, image and to see if this bug should be fixed. I personally think it should be fixed, because the expected behavior was mentioned in the OP, and in our case, the frontend didn't correctly add the owner to the full approval chain(i.e., rule approval chain + submitsTo/owner/forwards). 😄

ntdiary avatar Dec 04 '24 02:12 ntdiary

Cool, yeah @nkdengineer can now implement the correct sorting (with transaction inserted date - b/c that was just deployed yesterday)

and to see if https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/52537#issuecomment-2504308501 should be fixed. I personally think it should be fixed, because the expected behavior was mentioned in the OP, and in our case, the frontend didn't correctly add the owner to the full approval chain(i.e., rule approval chain + submitsTo/owner/forwards). 😄

I think this makes sense too, to fix here 👍 i believe it should be a relatively quick fix 😅

Beamanator avatar Dec 05 '24 14:12 Beamanator

Sure will give an update soon.

nkdengineer avatar Dec 05 '24 14:12 nkdengineer

BTW, it would be great if we can add some unit tests for this feature, since we've recently started prioritizing unit test. :) image slack conv: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1733148961659549 https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1733164389303049

ntdiary avatar Dec 05 '24 14:12 ntdiary

Ooh definitely agreed about tests 👍 though i wouldn't mind if that's in a follow-up just so we can get this out the door quicker 🤷

Beamanator avatar Dec 05 '24 15:12 Beamanator

Maybe this should be fixed as a frontend bug: When no.4 approves, the frontend optimistic message shows no further action required!, but the correct backend data is waiting for no.25 to approve. (no.25 is policy owner)

@Beamanator For this bug, I see it's expected here that will show the No further action required! if the approver isn't the payer.

nkdengineer avatar Dec 05 '24 15:12 nkdengineer

Ok IDK bout y'all, but I think y'all need to be suuuuuper clear on the setup you're using to confirm / deny if the policy owner is expected to be the "final approver" in your cases.

@nkdengineer the PR you linked doesn't have anything to do with category/tag approvers, it looks like a super simple setup - does that apply here?

Do you both understand each other's setups or should you both lay out the setup (policy type, autoReportingFrequency, approval mode (basic vs advanced), members list / who approves to who, category & tag approvers, order of expense creation w/ their category/tags)

Beamanator avatar Dec 06 '24 14:12 Beamanator

Do you both understand each other's setups or should you both lay out the setup (policy type, autoReportingFrequency, approval mode (basic vs advanced), members list / who approves to who, category & tag approvers, order of expense creation w/ their category/tags)

I think we both have a clear understanding of each other's setups, it's just that we haven't reached an agreement on what should be displayed after the last tag rule approver has approved. 😄

I have the following setup:

  1. Control policy, Advanced Approval, the final approver is policy owner (no.25)
  2. the cat_1 approver is no.1, the cat_2 approver is no.2, the tag_3 approver is no.3, the tag_4 approver is no.4.
  3. submitter (no.24) creates 4 expenses in this order: tag_3, tag_4, cat_1, cat_2.
  4. In my tests, both the frontend and backend are able to correctly move from no.1 to no.2, then to no.3, and then to no.4. But after the approval by no.4, the frontend only shows no further action required!, and the backend can correctly return waiting for no.25 to approve (i.e., the policy owner):

ntdiary avatar Dec 06 '24 15:12 ntdiary

Thanks @ntdiary that's very helpful! Can you also please show what the approval workflow looks like? I see you mention "the final approver is policy owner (no.25)" but I would love to see how that's set up in your employeeList just to confirm 🙏 everything else makes complete sense!

Beamanator avatar Dec 06 '24 18:12 Beamanator

@Beamanator, this employeeList? image

image

For easier testing, my account name matches the email number. e.g., no.1 corresponds to [email protected]. :)

approval flow: submitter(no.24) -> no.1 -> no.2 -> no.3 -> no.4 -> policy owner(no.25)

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/da6a936c-d3c2-49b3-bc75-8a92a7bd70c0

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3785f6c8-3405-4528-a860-1539211e2ae5

ntdiary avatar Dec 07 '24 03:12 ntdiary

Thanks @ntdiary ! 👍

Ok ya so it IS expected that, in your case, the policy owner is the final approver - this is because the submitter's submitsTo is the policy owner, not because we want to always end with policy owner 👍

Beamanator avatar Dec 09 '24 20:12 Beamanator

@Beamanator So it's not a bug, right?

nkdengineer avatar Dec 09 '24 20:12 nkdengineer

Right, in @ntdiary 's case at least, it's not a backend bug, it is expected for the submitsTo to approve (in advanced approval case) AFTER all of the rule approvers

Beamanator avatar Dec 09 '24 22:12 Beamanator

Right, in @ntdiary 's case at least, it's not a backend bug, it is expected for the submitsTo to approve (in advanced approval case) AFTER all of the rule approvers

@Beamanator, yeah, as I mentioned earlier, the backend works well, it's just that the frontend didn't correctly add the policy owner to the approval chain, I will continue testing soon. If you also feel this isn’t a blocker, we can ignore it here, just hope it won't be treated as a regression or bug in future QA tests. :)

ntdiary avatar Dec 10 '24 00:12 ntdiary

Ya thanks for getting us full circle 😂 I honestly do think this is something we need to fix in this issue - agreed we don’t want this to be counted as a regression later

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 5:44 PM wentao @.***> wrote:

Right, in @ntdiary https://github.com/ntdiary 's case at least, it's not a backend bug, it is expected for the submitsTo to approve (in advanced approval case) AFTER all of the rule approvers

@Beamanator https://github.com/Beamanator, yeah, as I mentioned earlier, the backend works well, it's just that the frontend didn't correctly add the policy owner to the approval chain, I will continue testing soon. If you also feel this isn’t a blocker, we can ignore it here, just hope it won't be treated as a regression or bug in future QA tests. :)

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/52537#issuecomment-2529927984, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA5UTPZDNMPK5NODB2IK3KD2EY2PDAVCNFSM6AAAAABRYPSOSOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKMRZHEZDOOJYGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

Beamanator avatar Dec 10 '24 04:12 Beamanator

image

BTW, @Beamanator, curious, can we have multiple tag approvers for 1 single expense? So far, I’ve only seen that a regular tag can have just one approver. Although we have multi-level tags, it seems like approvers can’t be assigned to them yet?

image image

ntdiary avatar Dec 10 '24 15:12 ntdiary

@ntdiary yikes, yeah in OldDot I'm struggling to even get multi-level tags set up in a policy 🙈

I guess NewDot doesn't support multiple tags even at the moment, so probably won't support multiple tag approvers for a bit, so I would say we can skip that part of tests / sorting & add it in later whenever that's added to the app

Beamanator avatar Dec 10 '24 16:12 Beamanator

So what's the status of this PR? @nkdengineer are you waiting on anyone for anything?

Beamanator avatar Dec 11 '24 23:12 Beamanator

Ya thanks for getting us full circle 😂 I honestly do think this is something we need to fix in this issue - agreed we don’t want this to be counted as a regression later

I think this is the last major problem that needs to be addressed. :D cc @nkdengineer

ntdiary avatar Dec 12 '24 00:12 ntdiary

Bump @ntdiary did you have any chance to test today?

Beamanator avatar Dec 17 '24 13:12 Beamanator

Bump @ntdiary did you have any chance to test today?

@Beamanator, yeah, I’m reviewing it now. I was delayed during the day because I had to go to the hospital. :)

ntdiary avatar Dec 17 '24 13:12 ntdiary

Oof!!! Feel free to rest & pick this up tomorrow!

Beamanator avatar Dec 17 '24 13:12 Beamanator