[HOLD for payment 2024-04-25] [$250] IOU - Blank page after returning to IOU report from thread and deleting the other request

[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!

---

Version Number: 1.4.62-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Issue reported by: Applause-Internal team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to any chat.
3. Create two IOUs.
4. Go to the transaction thread of the first IOU.
5. Click on the header subtitle to return to IOU report.
6. Right click on the second IOU preview > Delete request.
7. Delete the request.

Expected Result:

App will open one report transaction view (combined IOU report).

Actual Result:

A blank page shows up.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6445479_1712816252003.bandicam_2024-04-11_14-14-44-762.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~012dc6ca492e81c98f
• Upwork Job ID: 1778531947093139456
• Last Price Increase: 2024-04-11
• Automatic offers:
• Ollyws | Reviewer | 0
• tienifr | Contributor | 0

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @trjExpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @youssef-lr (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[izarutskaya]

@trjExpensify I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors.

[izarutskaya]

We think this issue might be related to the #collect project.

[izarutskaya]

Production

bandicam.2024-04-11.11-13-28-751.mp4

[tienifr]

Proposal

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

A blank page shows up.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When users create 2 IOUs -> transactionThreadReportID is null because of this logic

If transactionThreadReportID is null we will show all actions

When they go to the first IOU and go back, the url will be /r/reportID/reportActionID, then delete the second IOU, the url is still /r/reportID/reportActionID and transactionThreadReportID has value (because there's only one IOU action)

if transactionThreadReportID is not null we will filter out all IOU actions because of this logic, then try to show the IOU action that has id in url

-> the empty chat is shown

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

When transactionThreadReportID has value (only one IOU action), we should remove reportActionID in url

    useEffect(()=>{
        if(transactionThreadReportID && route.params.reportActionID){
            Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(route.params.reportID));

        }
    },[transactionThreadReportID])

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

Result

web-resize.mp4

[youssef-lr]

I'm checking a PR to confirm if it's the offending one

[youssef-lr]

Confirmed it's a regression from #40079 after reverting it locally, @paultsimura @shubham1206agra @MonilBhavsar can you guys take a look please? @tienifr checking your proposal meanwhile

[shubham1206agra]

@tienifr Thanks for the proposal, but your solution will remove highlights from comments too when it switches back to singleTransactionView.

@roryabraham Shouldn't there be a failsafe whenever we use a wrong/non-existent reportActionID in the URL, it should revert back to no reportActionID in the URL present?

cc @youssef-lr

[tienifr]

@shubham1206agra I just remove reportActionID when there's only one IOU action. In that case we need to redirect to transaction report, so the highlighted action should not be shown

[shubham1206agra]

@shubham1206agra I just remove reportActionID when there's only one IOU action. In that case we need to redirect to transaction report, so the highlighted action should not be shown

Right, but if the highlight is on a comment it will be shown as it is in the report. Why the comment's highlight will be removed?

[shubham1206agra]

Confirmed it's a regression from #40079 after reverting it locally, @paultsimura @shubham1206agra @MonilBhavsar can you guys take a look please? @tienifr checking your proposal meanwhile

@youssef-lr Am I missing something? @tienifr solution suggests something else. And the logic in #40079 should not affect this issue at all.

[paultsimura]

I also doubt the referenced PR is the cause, but I'll be able to test thoroughly in about 3-4 hours only.

[youssef-lr]

Sorry folks, that PR is not the culprit. When I tested after reverting, I delete the highlighted report action and not the last one, and that doesn't seem to reproduce the bug. It's only reproduced when we delete the non-highlighted report action.

[youssef-lr]

Back to searching for the offending PR as I think that would help us know how to fix this properly.

[youssef-lr]

Ok this is the offending PR #39454, it seems like this is new functionality because when I revert it I don't see the previous report action highlighted. @rayane-djouah @rushatgabhane @jasperhuangg can you guys take a look please @tienifr's proposal?

[jasperhuangg]

@tienifr's proposal makes sense to me, thanks for catching this! Feel free to assign them if it makes sense to you as well.

[youssef-lr]

It looks good to me too.

[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 1.4.62-17 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] fix: Blank page after returning to IOU report from thread and deleting the other request #40157

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-04-25. 🎊

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

• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @tienifr requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[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:

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

[rushatgabhane]

1. The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Update thread headers and ancestry to deep link back to the original comment using comment linking #39454

2. 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: Update thread headers and ancestry to deep link back to the original comment using comment linking #39454 (comment)

3. 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: N.A.

4. Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. No

5. 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 - N.A.

[trjExpensify]

👋 Let's get the checklist done, @rushatgabhane!

[rushatgabhane]

All done

[youssef-lr]

Not overdue.

[trjExpensify]

Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. No

Mind being a little more descriptive on the why here, @rushatgabhane? Is one being added elsewhere for the new "ancestor" thread logic?

[melvin-bot]

@youssef-lr, @trjExpensify, @rushatgabhane, @tienifr Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[trjExpensify]

Bump on this, @rushatgabhane.

[rushatgabhane]

@trjExpensify i was thinking the root cause is trivial. i.e. we didn't navigate to IOU report when it was deleted.

In PR #40157, we made that change so this issue won't happen again

[rushatgabhane]

But yes, if we think that we should add a test, here are the regression steps -

1. Go to the app
2. Go to any chat.
3. Create two IOUs.
4. Go to the transaction thread of the first IOU.
5. Click on the header subtitle to return to IOU report.
6. Right click on the second IOU preview > Delete request.
7. Delete the request.
8. Verify that you are navigated to the other first IOU request.

[trjExpensify]

@trjExpensify i was thinking the root cause is trivial. i.e. we didn't navigate to IOU report when it was deleted.

In PR #40157, we made that change so this issue won't happen again

Alright, thanks for expanding on that - I don't think it's trivial if it results in a blank empty page. Looks like we have a regression test for this which includes navigating back as the expected behaviour, so I think we're covered.

[trjExpensify]

Payment summary as follows:

• $250 to @rushatgabhane for the C+ review (go ahead and request)
• $250 to @tienifr for the fix (paid)

Closing!

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @rushatgabhane