Allow selfApproval when the rule feature is disabled

[mkzie2]

Explanation of Change

Allow selfApproval when the rule feature is disabled

Fixed Issues

$ #54206
PROPOSAL: #54206 (comment)

Tests

1. Enable the workflow, approval
2. Enable rule feature and enable prevent selfApproval
3. Disable the rule feature
4. Go to the WS chat and create an expense
5. Verify that the admin can submit/approve the self-expense

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same

QA Steps

1. Enable the workflow, approval
2. Enable rule feature and enable prevent selfApproval
3. Disable the rule feature
4. Go to the WS chat and create an expense
5. Verify that the admin can submit/approve the self expense

• 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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2025-01-17.at.13.53.06.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-01-17.at.13.48.56.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-01-17.at.14.16.02.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-01-17.at.13.50.48.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-01-17.at.13.41.40.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-01-17.at.14.19.07.mov

[mkzie2]

@mountiny In this PR, FE allows the user to self-approve if the rule feature is disabled and policy.preventSelfApproval is true. But the backend still prevents it now; it returns the error You cannot approve your own report in this case. We need a small backend change to allow self-approval when the policy? areRulesEnabledisfalseevenpolicy.preventSelfApprovalistrue`.

[melvin-bot]

@hungvu193 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]

[mountiny]

Thanks! I am making change in the BE https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/45169 that will make sure the preventSelfApproval value is reset to false when the rules feature is turned off.

Could you please make sure to update the optimisticData for the action that toggles the rules feature to reflect that. Can you please add unit tests for the action and for the isAllowedToApproveExpenseReport too?

[mountiny]

I have made some backend changes where this will not be needed, actually this could lead to some older reports that never enabled or disabled the feature to skip this call because the default is false but they could have set the prevent self approval to true in OldDot

Suggested change

	if (!policy?.areRulesEnabled) {
	return true;
	}
	if (!policy?.areRulesEnabled) {
	return true;
	}

[hungvu193]

Oops, if we do that, doesn't that we should select TonyMK proposal?

[mountiny]

Yeah we could have, we can give TonyMK partial reward for their proposal