Deactivated users reappeared

[pH142857]

I created a project on https://ihatemoney.org/ for my house. Two flatmates left, I balanced their accounts to 0€ and deactivated them. Several expenses later, they reappeared with a positive balance, even though they are still deactivated. How is that possible and how to prevent it?
Merci d'avance.

[Glandos]

Hi, thanks for the report.
Will trying to reproduce it, I did the following scenario:

• Start from empty project with 3 participants
• Add 2 bills, each one from one participant to the last one
• Balance one participant to 0 (by issuing a reverse bill), and deactivate it
• Modify the initial bill of the deactivated participant
• => It's now a mess.

It seems that the deactivated participant is not displayed in the bill edit form, even if we are editing a bill with the deactivated participant as the payer.

@pH142857 Do you think it happens because of a bill edition? Or maybe a bill removal?

[pH142857]

Aaah, yes you're right. Chronologically,

• A bill has been created with some users involved,
• 2 involved users have been balanced to zero then deactivated,
• The bill has been edited to remove them from it (because it probably was a mistake)
  So this is logical after all, but it's an "illegal" move made possible.

So the solution would be either :

• to make it plainly impossible to remove/add a deactivated user from a bill, or
• to issue a warning "this will reactivate this user, continue yes/no ?" and if yes, reactivate the user.

[Glandos]

Thanks for the confirmation.

I've played around with bill edit form. At least, I've added back the deactivated payer and payees that are part of the bill. Now, I'm wondering how to render them. The trickiest part is that damn HTML select are nearly not customizable. The text are just basic, without styling at all. It is possible to style the payee list labels, but it will be inconsistent with the select.
So my best shot so far is to add a (ugly) (deactived) suffix:

The warning is a bit difficult to generate here, if we want to try to detect something on the deactivated people. But we can add a generic one, in case of the form has at least one deactivated user.

[almet]

I think I would prefer to make this impossible to do without reactivating the users first. That would be easier to do and not clutter the UX?

[FlowingCloudRTL]

As a continuation of this conversation. I was able to create replicating active participant name by first deactivate a user, add a new user with same name, then change their initial bill and activate the user again


This can be address by either not allowing participant name to be created if they are used by deactivated user, not allow an user to be re-activated if there is currently another active participant with the same name, or just not allowing bills revolving deactivated participant to be edited at all.

[FlowingCloudRTL]

Would it be possible for me to work on this issue?

[chestnutFan]

[BugFIx #1104] Have fixed this issue by banning editing (and deleting, which would also trigger this problem) bills involving deactivated users. Corresponding test functions were committed together.

This is my first time contributing to an open-source project. Learned a lot from your code. Thanks very much : )

[mzhongqi]

As a continuation of this conversation. I was able to create replicating active participant name by first deactivate a user, add a new user with same name, then change their initial bill and activate the user again This can be address by either not allowing participant name to be created if they are used by deactivated user, not allow an user to be re-activated if there is currently another active participant with the same name, or just not allowing bills revolving deactivated participant to be edited at all.

#1106 Resolved the above issue proposed by @FlowingCloudRTL, ensuring that duplicated user names with deactivated users in the dataset are not allowed (Since they are deactivated but not deleted because they are bounded by a bill/bills).

[almet]

Tracked in #1104

[pH142857]

Hello ! Shouldn't this be closed? :)