[HOLD for payment 2023-10-25] [$500] Workspace - Selected members unselect on switch from offline to online

[lanitochka17]

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. Go to Settings > Workspaces > Members
2. Go offline
3. Click on invite button
4. Enter email which is not in list and invite that user
5. From Members screen select that user
6. Go online

Expected Result:

Selected should not unselect automatically

Actual Result:

Selected members unselect automatically

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: 1.3.75-0

Reproducible in staging?: Yes

Reproducible in production?: Yes

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_Recording_20230929_142421_Chrome_1.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-09-29.at.2.22.45.PM.mov

Screen_Recording_20230929_140311_New.Expensify.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-09-29.at.2.09.26.PM.mov

RPReplay_Final1695976855.MP4

RPReplay_Final1695976972.MP4

Recording.116.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: @gadhiyamanan

Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1695976528390539

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0100a927d9b515117f

[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

[melvin-bot]

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

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Proposal

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

Selected new members unselect automatically after switch from offline to online

What is the root cause of that problem?

The main problem is that the selected elements are stored as ids
But since after that we gain access to the Internet, new IDs are generated for elements created offline

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

Once we have access to the Internet
We can check old items by login and replace the old IDs with new ones if there is a match

App/src/pages/workspace/WorkspaceMembersPage.js

Lines 113 to 124 in 7c86d09

	useEffect(() => {
	if (removeMembersConfirmModalVisible && !_.isEqual(accountIDs, prevAccountIDs)) {
	setRemoveMembersConfirmModalVisible(false);
	}
	setSelectedEmployees((prevSelected) =>
	_.intersection(
	prevSelected,
	_.map(_.values(PolicyUtils.getMemberAccountIDsForWorkspace(props.policyMembers, props.personalDetails)), (accountID) => Number(accountID)),
	),
	);
	// eslint-disable-next-line react-hooks/exhaustive-deps
	}, [props.policyMembers]);

We can update this useEffect like

    useEffect(() => {
        if (removeMembersConfirmModalVisible && !_.isEqual(accountIDs, prevAccountIDs)) {
            setRemoveMembersConfirmModalVisible(false);
        }

        setSelectedEmployees((prevSelected) => {
            const prevSelectedElements = _.map(prevSelected, (id) => {
                const res = _.find(_.values(props.personalDetails), (item) => _.lodashGet(prevPersonalDetails[id],'login') === _.lodashGet(item,'login'));
                return res.accountID;
            });
            return _.intersection(
		prevSelectedElements,
                _.map(_.values(PolicyUtils.getMemberAccountIDsForWorkspace(props.policyMembers, props.personalDetails)), (accountID) => Number(accountID)),
            );
        });
        // eslint-disable-next-line react-hooks/exhaustive-deps
    }, [props.policyMembers]);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[abdel-h66]

Proposal

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

Reconnecting to the network removes selected newly added members from the members list

What is the root cause of that problem?

The newly added members have temporary id that are used to handle the selection in the members list, except that when coming back online that will trigger command=AddMembersToWorkspace which will retrieve the correct user IDs

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

We can start by finding the members with a pending add action using this utility

    const findMembersWithPreviouslyPendingActions = useCallback(() => {

        const membersWithPendingAddActionIds = _.pick(props.policyMembers, (member) => member.pendingAction === CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD);
        const personalDetailsWithPendingAddActionIds = _.pick(props.personalDetails, (personalDetail, accountID) => membersWithPendingAddActionIds[accountID])
    
    
        return _.map(personalDetailsWithPendingAddActionIds, (personalDetail) => personalDetail.login);
    
    }, [props.personalDetails, props.policyMembers])

And then when coming back online, we will try to guess the newly added member real ID using their login which will not change after coming back online, it could be something like this. the code can definitly be imporoved. it's just a quick POC

    useEffect(() => {
        const isReconnecting = prevIsOffline && !props.network.isOffline;

        if(!isReconnecting) {
            return 
        }
        const previouslySelectedEmailsWithPendingActions = findMembersWithPreviouslyPendingActions();

        setMembersWithPreviouslySelectedEmails(_.pick(props.personalDetails, (personalDetail) => _.contains(previouslySelectedEmailsWithPendingActions, personalDetail.login)))
        
    }, [findMembersWithPreviouslyPendingActions, prevIsOffline, props.network.isOffline, props.personalDetails])


    useEffect(() => {
        const emailsOfPreviouslySelectedMembers = _.map(memberWithPreviouslySelectedEmails, (member) => member.login);

        setSelectedEmployees((prevSelected) => {
            const membersToSelect = _.pick(props.personalDetails, (personalDetail) => emailsOfPreviouslySelectedMembers.includes(personalDetail.login) )

            return [...prevSelected, ..._.map(membersToSelect, (member) => Number(member.accountID))]
        })
    }, [memberWithPreviouslySelectedEmails, props.personalDetail, props.personalDetails])

offline.mp4

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A

[mollfpr]

@abdel-h66 I'm not sure using personalDetails to change the selected option is the correct way while we definitely use policyMembers to show the members. What is the reason for that?

[abdel-h66]

It's true that we are using the ids from policyMembers to handle the selection, and that's where the issues lies, basically the ID on the policyMembers collection will change once we go online, making us lose the selection. the use of personalDetails will helps us look find for the new ID inside the policyMembers

We then return [...prevSelected, ..._.map(membersToSelect, (member) => Number(member.accountID))] as the only ID is necessary to perform a selection and not the whole object from policyMembers

Here is an example:

1. Go offline
2. Invite a new member to the workspace. their email is test22@gmail.com
   This new member will have a random ID generated from the client ID = RANDOM_22
3. going back to the list and select this ID
4. The selection now has the [RANDOM_22]
5. Go online
6. The command AddMembersToWorkspace will be trigerred
7. Now our member test22@gmail.com Id will change and become REAL_ID_22

Using my suggestion we know that the member test22@gmail.com has a pending action, we can use that to store the email and then use it to find the new ID REAL_ID_22 and automatically selecting it making the selection now [REAL_ID_22] instead of [RANDOM_22] which no longer exists

I hope this was clear :) let me know if you still have any questions

[mollfpr]

t's true that we are using the ids from policyMembers to handle the selection, and that's where the issues lies, basically the ID on the policyMembers collection will change once we go online, making us lose the selection.

I don't understand why using policyMembers is the issue, isn't the accountID on personalDetails changed to when back online?

Also, the personalDetails will not change if we remove a member from another device, so that's why listen to policyMembers change from the pusher and update the selection accordingly.

---

@ZhenjaHorbach Your solution seems simple enough to solve the issue, but can we map through the previously selected list only if we have members from offline? It seems unnecessary if we add members from existing personalDetails.

[abdel-h66]

The issue with the policyMembers collection is that it does not contain enough information, the personalDetails contains the .login property that I needed to perform the logic :)

[ZhenjaHorbach]

@mollfpr
I don't think that's a problem
We can use pendingAction field in personalDetails elements for example
And сheck only those elements if pendingAction is not empty)

[mollfpr]

We still need to stick with policyMembers to update the selection. So the proposal from @ZhenjaHorbach is simple enough to solve this issue.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed!

[melvin-bot]

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

[stephanieelliott]

Hey @Li357 are you working on a PR for this issue?

[melvin-bot]

@Li357, @mollfpr, @stephanieelliott Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[Li357]

I agree @ZhenjaHorbach is simpler, assigning you!

[ZhenjaHorbach]

@stephanieelliott
@Li357
Hello )
Can you please unassign and assign me again?
Because I didn't still get an offer )

[stephanieelliott]

Hi @ZhenjaHorbach I've extended the offer to you manually, the job is here!

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Hi @ZhenjaHorbach I've extended the offer to you manually, the job is here!

Thank you )

[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 1.3.86-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Selected workspace members unselect on switch from offline to online #29587

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-25. 🎊

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:

• @mollfpr requires payment
• @ZhenjaHorbach requires payment
• @gadhiyamanan requires payment

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:

• [@Li357] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@Li357] 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:
• [@Li357] 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:
• [@mollfpr / @ZhenjaHorbach] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@mollfpr / @ZhenjaHorbach] 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.
• [@stephanieelliott] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[mollfpr]

The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:

#17166

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:

https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/18934/files#r1371829488

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:

The regression step should be enough.

Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
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.

1. Go to Settings > Workspaces > Members
2. Go offline
3. Click on the invite button
4. Enter an email that is not in the list and invite that user
5. From the Members screen, select that user
6. Go online
7. Verify the selection is remains
8. 👍 or 👎

[mollfpr]

@stephanieelliott Could you give us the payment summary? Thank you!

[melvin-bot]

@Li357, @mollfpr, @stephanieelliott, @ZhenjaHorbach Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[stephanieelliott]

Summarizing payment on this issue:

• Issue reporter: @gadhiyamanan $50, to pay via Upwork (Please accept Upwork offer)
• Contributor: @ZhenjaHorbach $750 ($500+$750 bonus), to pay via Upwork - PAID
• Contributor+: @mollfpr $750 ($500+$750 bonus), please request via NewDot

Upwork job is here, 50% bonus is included on final payout

[gadhiyamanan]

@stephanieelliott offer accepted, thanks!

[stephanieelliott]

All Upwork payments completed!

[JmillsExpensify]

$750 payment approved for @mollfpr based on summary above.