Chat - Content is not loading after network return if the App starts while offline

[kbecciv]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Action Performed:

1. Kill the App (dismiss App's card)
2. Turn network off
3. Start the App
4. Check content in different chats ( will be infinite loading)
5. Turn network on
6. Check content in all chats again (will be infinite loading as well)

Expected Result:

The user should see the content in chats (that he visited before) when starting offline

Actual Result:

Content is not loading after network return if the App starts while offline

Workaround:

Unknown

Platform:

Where is this issue occurring?

• Web
• iOS
• Android
• Desktop App
• Mobile Web

Version Number: 1.2.25.0

Reproducible in staging?: Yes

Reproducible in production?: Yes

Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):

Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856

Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

Bug5812700_offline_content.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Slack conversation:

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @muttmuure (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[JmillsExpensify]

@muttmuure This one has come up in a couple of contexts. Let's triage this and get the process started.

[fedirjh]

we have to update IS_LOADING_INITIAL_APP_DATA in reconnectApp , this is a regression from #12169

App/src/libs/actions/App.js

Lines 162 to 180 in 0d653ca

	function reconnectApp() {
	API.write('ReconnectApp', {policyIDListExcludingWorkspacesCreatedOffline}, {
	optimisticData: [{
	onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_REPORT_DATA,
	value: true,
	}],
	successData: [{
	onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_REPORT_DATA,
	value: false,
	}],
	failureData: [{
	onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_REPORT_DATA,
	value: false,
	}],
	});
	}

function reconnectApp() { 
    API.write('ReconnectApp', {policyIDListExcludingWorkspacesCreatedOffline}, { 
        optimisticData: [ 
            { 
                onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE, 
                key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_REPORT_DATA, 
                value: true, 
            }, 
+            { 
+                onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE, 
+                key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_INITIAL_APP_DATA, 
+                value: true, 
+            }, 
        ], 
        successData: [ 
            { 
                onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE, 
                key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_REPORT_DATA, 
                value: false, 
            }, 
+            { 
+                onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE, 
+                key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_INITIAL_APP_DATA, 
+                value: false, 
+            }, 
        ], 
        failureData: [ 
            { 
                onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE, 
                key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_REPORT_DATA, 
                value: false, 
            }, 
+            { 
+                onyxMethod: CONST.ONYX.METHOD.MERGE, 
+                key: ONYXKEYS.IS_LOADING_INITIAL_APP_DATA, 
+                value: false, 
+            }, 
        ], 
    }); 
}

[melvin-bot]

@muttmuure Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[muttmuure]

I can reproduce so adding engineering

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @amyevans (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[mountiny]

cc @marcaaron I think this is mentioning your PR, what do you think of the proposal, as you might have more insight into this.

[marcaaron]

I think we should just revert my PR here. It's more important for the offline behavior to work than the new marker behavior to work. My solution to fix it was flawed and should be reverted.

[amyevans]

Yeah, agreed that the new marker behavior is less important, thanks @marcaaron!

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• @muttmuure A regression test has been added or updated so that the same bug will not reach production again. Link to the GH issue for creating the test here: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/243253
• @amyevans @marcaaron The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Refactor "new action" logic in ReportActionsView to fix new marker #12169
• @muttmuure The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment: Refactor "new action" logic in ReportActionsView to fix new marker #12169 (comment)
• @muttmuure A discussion in #contributor-plus has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01SKUP7QR0/p1668536286080859
• @muttmuure Payment has been made to the issue reporter (if applicable)
• @muttmuure Payment has been made to the contributor that fixed the issue (if applicable)
• @muttmuure Payment has been made to the contributor+ that helped on the issue (if applicable)

[Tushu17]

I had reported an issue here as a regression related to skeleton ui and it got resolved by the PR(link) of this issue. so I believe I am eligible for the reporting bonus.
I had reported the issue at (2:37) and this issue was created at (3:56) it wasn't a dupe.
cc- @muttmuure

[marcaaron]

@muttmuure sorry did most of the BZ checklist for you already 🥲

[muttmuure]

@Tushu17 the first report is here from Carlos - https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1667839756928309 - so this doesn't seem eligible for the reporting bonus this time.

I'm going to close out.

Let me know if you disagree!

[Tushu17]

the first report is here from Carlos - https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1667839756928309

Hi, @muttmuure that wasn't a bug you can see the convo here, it was marked as "not a bug" because it was just a dev build problem.

[mananjadhav]

@muttmuure this is eligible for C+ review of internal PR. Can you please help with the same ?

cc - @marcaaron

[JmillsExpensify]

@muttmuure Can you issue payment for @mananjadhav. Thanks!

[mananjadhav]

@muttmuure Quick bump on this, can you help with the payout?

[JmillsExpensify]

@mananjadhav can you apply here please? https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~011aef35eb61fef46b

[Tushu17]

Hi, @muttmuure that wasn't a bug you can see the convo here, it was marked as "not a bug" because it was just a dev build problem.

@JmillsExpensify, I'm also eligible for reporting bonus.

[JmillsExpensify]

@Tushu17 Same link above should work for you.

[mananjadhav]

@JmillsExpensify I deleted an incorrect comment earlier. The paid out comment was for another issue. I am unable to apply to this job. It says Only invited users can find, view and apply to the job

[JmillsExpensify]

Just invited you. Upwork is being difficult 😄

[mananjadhav]

Haha! Applied @JmillsExpensify

[JmillsExpensify]

Offers just sent to both C and C+

[JmillsExpensify]

Everyone should be handled now. Regression test also already exists, so I think we're done here. Closing!