[HOLD for payment 2023-10-02] [$500] Split bill - Here is no smooth animation for Paid by and Split with users on Split bill page

[izarutskaya]

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. Open website
2. Click on plus icon > Split bill >Enter sum > Choose user(s) and click on Next btn > Click on Paid by and Split with's user's username

Expected Result:

There should be smooth animation for Paid by and Split with users on Split bill page

Actual Result:

There is no smooth animation for Paid by and Split with users on Split bill page

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android / native
• Android / Chrome
• iOS / native
• iOS / Safari
• MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• MacOS / Desktop

Version Number: v1.3.60-1

Reproducible in staging?: Y

Reproducible in production?: Y

If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:

Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):

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

Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

Screen-Capture.66.mp4

Recording.1397.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: @MahmudjonToraqulov

Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1692713551555059

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0179ce98efccffa8c3
• Upwork Job ID: 1700175437224157184
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-15
• Automatic offers:
• b4s36t4 | Contributor | 26739682
• mahmudjontoraqulov | Reporter | 26739683

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[b4s36t4]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Split bill - Here is no smooth animation for Paid by and Split with users on Split bill page.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The RCA for this issue lies here in this snippet

App/src/pages/ProfilePage.js

Lines 102 to 106 in 96a0db1

	useEffect(() => {
	if (ValidationUtils.isValidAccountRoute(accountID)) {
	PersonalDetails.openPublicProfilePage(accountID);
	}
	}, [accountID]);

.

We're calling the OpenPublicProfilePage command API without any condition.

But we have multiple conditionals based on the loading start for the component.
This is how the current flow is

Click on Account -> Navigate to ProfilePage -> load variables related to component & Call the API -> props.personalDetails updated -> Again load the variable.

This transition causing the modal to re-render two quickly causing the interruption with the transition.

We already have the loading indicator but it isn't working because of few cases which we're not considering when we're doing the api call.

App/src/pages/ProfilePage.js

Line 240 in 96a0db1

{!hasMinimumDetails && isLoading && <FullScreenLoadingIndicator style={styles.flex1} />}

Here we're only showing loading state when there is no minimum details and loading state is true.

Although we have the loading state as true but we have minimum details for the particular user which is the reason we're not showing the loading.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We should move the useEffect to below lines and add the dependency of hasMinimumDetails and only call the API if we don't have minimum details.

useEffect(() => {
    if (ValidationUtils.isValidAccountRoute(accountID) && !hasMinimumDetails) {
        PersonalDetails.openPublicProfilePage(accountID);
    }
}, [accountID, hasMinimumDetails]);

Doing this so ensures we're not causing the re-render unnecessarily and so the animation works perfectly.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

Result

Kapture.2023-08-31.at.17.15.39.mp4

PS: This is the smoothest transition I've encountered and fixed(on demo though) :xD

[melvin-bot]

@kevinksullivan Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0179ce98efccffa8c3

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @kevinksullivan is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @eVoloshchak (External)

[kevinksullivan]

Moving forward 👍

[eVoloshchak]

@b4s36t4's proposal looks good to me, I think we should proceed with it

PS: This is the smoothest transition I've encountered and fixed(on demo though) :xD

does this mean some transitions can be less smooth than others? 🤯

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed!

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @neil-marcellini, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

@eVoloshchak @kevinksullivan @neil-marcellini this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

@eVoloshchak, @kevinksullivan, @neil-marcellini Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[melvin-bot]

@eVoloshchak, @kevinksullivan, @neil-marcellini Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[eVoloshchak]

Not overdue, waiting on @neil-marcellini's opinion on this

[b4s36t4]

@eVoloshchak Created PR here #27876

[melvin-bot]

Based on my calculations, the pull request did not get merged within 3 working days of assignment. Please, check out my computations here:

• when @b4s36t4 got assigned: 2023-09-18 20:15:35 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-09-22 03:51:23 UTC
• days elapsed: 3

On to the next one 🚀

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.73-1 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix transition of profiles on request confirmation page #27876

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-02. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @eVoloshchak does not require payment (Eligible for Manual Requests)
• @b4s36t4 requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @MahmudjonToraqulov requires payment offer (Reporter)

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[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:

• [@eVoloshchak] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@eVoloshchak] 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:
• [@eVoloshchak] A discussion in #expensify-bugs 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:
• [@eVoloshchak] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@eVoloshchak] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@kevinksullivan] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[eVoloshchak]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: there isn't a PR that caused it (not that I could pinpoint at least), that's the original implementation from Add new Profile page #20144
• 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: N/A
• A discussion in #expensify-bugs 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: this is a simple visual bug, don't think an additional discussion is needed
• Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
  Is it easy to test for this bug? Yes
  Is the bug related to an important user flow? Yes
  Is it an impactful bug? No
  The bug has near zero impact, just an animation that isn't smooth, I think a regression test isn't needed here

[eVoloshchak]

Based on my calculations, the pull request did not get merged within 3 working days of assignment. Please, check out my computations here:

I don't think that's correct, it was merged on a weekend, so it's definitely less than 3 business days

[kevinksullivan]

Weird, the dates are totally off in that post v. the PR, which shows it was opened on Sept 20 and merged on Sept 21. Paying out bonus for this.

[kevinksullivan]

@eVoloshchak offer sent, lmk when you accept! I will plan to pay bonus as well

[kevinksullivan]

Paid @b4s36t4 and @MahmudjonToraqulov

[eVoloshchak]

Weird, the dates are totally off in that post v. the PR, which shows it was opened on Sept 20 and merged on Sept 21

@kevinksullivan, it's calculated from the moment a contributor is assigned to the job to the moment PR is merged. The dates are correct, but the calculation of days elapsed isn't

offer sent, lmk when you accept! I will plan to pay bonus as well

Requested the payment via NewDot, thanks!

[JmillsExpensify]

Can I get a payment summary on this issue?

[kevinksullivan]

Payment summary:

• Reporter: @MahmudjonToraqulov $250
• Contributor: @b4s36t4 $750
• C+: @eVoloshchak $750 (paid in NewDot)

[JmillsExpensify]

$750 payment approved for @eVoloshchak based on BZ summary.

[melvin-bot]

@eVoloshchak, @kevinksullivan, @neil-marcellini, @b4s36t4 Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!