[$500] Assign task - the Task shifts position in the LHN if we delete the only message in it

[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 the app
2. Click on plus and click on assign task
3. Provide any title, select any user for share somewhere and Confirm task
4. Observe position in LHN
5. Send any text message
6. Delete sent message and observe change of position in LHN to bottom
7. Visit any other chat and revisit task chat, it will again jump to its original postion

Expected Result:

Task position should not change in LHN on deleting any message

Actual Result:

Task moves to bottom of LHN on deleting the only message in the task / it jumps position

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: v1.3.61-1

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

Task.shift.to.bottom.in.LHN.on.delete.msg.mp4

Bandicam.2023-09-01.16-22-46-967.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: @dhanashree-sawant

Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1692033299162729

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01fe04ae2863eac337
• Upwork Job ID: 1698487838846078976
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-04

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @jliexpensify (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

[StevenKKC]

Proposal

Please state again the problem we are trying to solve in this issue.

Task shifts to bottom in LHN if we delete only present message in it.

What is the cause of this issue?

Reports in LHN are first sorted by lastVisibleActionCreated, and then sorted by displayName.

App/src/libs/SidebarUtils.js

Line 158 in cb98bec

? lodashOrderBy(nonArchivedReports, ['lastVisibleActionCreated', (report) => report.displayName.toLowerCase()], ['desc', 'asc'])

If we delete only present message in the task report, BE responds empty lastVisibleActionCreated.
So the task shift to bottom.

If we revisit the task report, BE responds non-empty lastVisibleActionCreated, and then the task report will again regain its original position.

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

We can modify BE to respond correct lastVisibleActionCreated when delete only present message in the task report.
Or we can simply set proper lastVisibleActionCreated on FE side after DeleteComment API success.
For this, we can add optimistic successData in Report.deleteReportComment.

...
const lastVisibleAction = ReportActionsUtils.getLastVisibleAction(originalReportID, optimisticReportActions);
...
const successData = [
    ...
    {
        onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
        key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${originalReportID}`,
        value: {
            lastVisibleActionCreated: optimisticReport ? optimisticReport.lastVisibleActionCreated : '',
        },
    },
];
...

What alternative solutions have you investigated? (Optional)

None.

[jliexpensify]

Still seems to be occurring on v1.3.62-3 (staging) - I've noticed it jumps 1-2 positions when the message is deleted.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01fe04ae2863eac337

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[mananjadhav]

I think this should be fixed from the backend.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ Reviewed.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @Li357, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[Li357]

Hmm. I don't know if I agree @mananjadhav, just because this contradicts what lastVisibleActionCreated means. The CREATED report action isn't supposed to be visible, so there are no visible actions. Could we handle this in the frontend optimistically?

[Li357]

@mananjadhav Bump on this!

[melvin-bot]

@mananjadhav @Li357 @jliexpensify 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!

[jliexpensify]

Bump @mananjadhav to address Andrew's comments.

[mananjadhav]

@jliexpensify Can you please reassign another C+? I don't have the bandwidth to investigate this.

[melvin-bot]

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

[robertKozik]

@situchan can you get assigned to this one, as youwere lastly assigned to review connected PR?

[jliexpensify]

Assigned! LMK if anything else needs to be done @robertKozik

[robertKozik]

Thanks 🙇🏼 , I think it would me all from me as I was not working on that issue for a long time and @situchan take the PR review over.

[jliexpensify]

@situchan @blimpich how are we going here? This issue is a couple of months old, anything we need to do to push it along/resolve it?

[blimpich]

@jliexpensify Can we categorize this under a wave and try to get it prioritized there? That would help. I don't have the time to pick this up as I'm working on p2p receipts which is higher priority.

I'm going to unassign myself as I won't be able to get to this anytime in the near future.

[jliexpensify]

Sure thing @blimpich (sorry was OOO) - this should go in #vip-vsb

[blimpich]

Added hot pick and removed reviewing label to help get this picked up

[jliexpensify]

Thanks Ben! Not overdue

[mvtglobally]

Issue not reproducible during KI retests. (First week)

[jliexpensify]

Cool lets see if this pops up again. @mvtglobally can you re-test?

[mvtglobally]

Issue not reproducible during KI retests. (Second week)

[jliexpensify]

Sweet, lets close this. We are deprioritising VSB anyway.

[situchan]

@jliexpensify can I get compensation for reviewing PR?

[jliexpensify]

@situchan hmm my first thought is that you wouldn't be eligible, as the PR was never deployed. It looks like @Li357 gave context and then you had the last comment, but then nothing after that.

Was this PR actually merged or deployed?

[situchan]

I had commented with test result here.

PR was not merged.
Maybe this is the case in C+ doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BvohU05MTaHnjOD_vwJv_aqDAirv-ChkyRnKCAvOVyQ/edit?pli=1#heading=h.4qk1t4qmcejy (17. b.)

[jliexpensify]

@situchan If I am understanding correctly, you might qualify for this?

If a C+ invested time in the issue or PR and they feel they are due compensation they should wait until any dupe, held or >related issues are closed. They should then post in #contributor-plus and:

1. Tag the BZ and internal engineer
2. Link to the GH issue and/or PR.
3. Provide brief, yet detailed, reasoning for compensation
4. State the amount they feel they’re due. Standard percentages are 25, 50 and 100% of the job price.

Are you able to share a post and tag me?