[HOLD for payment 2024-07-10] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-02] [$250] Workspace - Unable to open Workspace setting when open member chat page

[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!

---

Version Number: 1.4.81-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to Profile> Workspaces> Create Workspace
2. Go to Members> Invite member> Invite any email address
3. Click on invited member section to open Profile page
4. Select message user
5. Go to Profile> Workspaces
6. Click on the workspace to open settings page

Expected Result:

Workspace settings page should open

Actual Result:

Workspace settings page can not be open, nothing happens when click on workspace

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

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6508586_1718049253343.Recording__3152.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0134016f887e04d471
• Upwork Job ID: 1800580579719432391
• Last Price Increase: 2024-06-18
• Automatic offers:
• ahmedGaber93 | Reviewer | 102793761

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @trjExpensify

[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.

[lanitochka17]

@trjExpensify FYI 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

[trjExpensify]

How bizarre! I'm able to reproduce, moving it on.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0134016f887e04d471

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @ahmedGaber93 (External)

[ahmedGaber93]

Waiting on proposals

[ahmedGaber93]

Waiting on proposals

[MrMuzyk]

I am Michał from Callstack - expert contributor group. I’d like to work on this job.

[ahmedGaber93]

@trjExpensify We can assign @MrMuzyk from callstack.

@MrMuzyk after assigning, please post your findings here daily and propose how to fix it to weigh in before creating a PR. thanks!

[MrMuzyk]

Proposal

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

App not navigating user to selected screen

What is the root cause of that problem?

In this scenario, in many of many checks before navigating user, we check if desired state is different from current state.
This is done via getPartialStateDiff function. Next, action from this diff is extracted and dispatched causing a navigate

App/src/libs/Navigation/linkTo/index.ts

Lines 125 to 131 in b278b8f

	if (adaptedState && (metainfo.isCentralPaneAndBottomTabMandatory || metainfo.isFullScreenNavigatorMandatory)) {
	const diff = getPartialStateDiff(rootState, adaptedState as State<RootStackParamList>, metainfo);
	const diffActions = getActionsFromPartialDiff(diff);
	for (const diffAction of diffActions) {
	root.dispatch(diffAction);
	}
	}

In this function we are checking not only if screen name is different but also if params are different. Because that wasn't the case here - params are the same as before - user wasn't getting redirected to proper screen

App/src/libs/Navigation/AppNavigator/getPartialStateDiff.ts

Lines 70 to 79 in b278b8f

	if (
	// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/prefer-nullish-coalescing
	(!stateTopmostFullScreen && templateStateTopmostFullScreen) ||
	(stateTopmostFullScreen &&
	templateStateTopmostFullScreen &&
	stateTopmostFullScreen.name !== templateStateTopmostFullScreen.name &&
	!shallowCompare(stateTopmostFullScreen.params as Record<string, unknown> | undefined, templateStateTopmostFullScreen.params as Record<string, unknown> | undefined))
	) {
	diff[NAVIGATORS.FULL_SCREEN_NAVIGATOR] = fullScreenDiff;
	}

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

I'd remove shallowCompare check from the condition in line 76. If screen names are different then it's good enough reason to navigate the user already. There is no need to check for params difference as well.

Update the condition to check for differences separately. So we would navigate user if:

• screen name changes
• screen name stays the same but params are different

(stateTopmostFullScreen.name !== templateStateTopmostFullScreen.name || !shallowCompare)

This should cover all the cases that were uncovered before

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[melvin-bot]

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

[ahmedGaber93]

In this function we are checking not only if screen name is different but also if params are different.

@MrMuzyk I think we need for that because in nested navigation state, params will contain screen name

[MrMuzyk]

@MrMuzyk I think we need for that because in nested navigation state, params will contain screen name

@ahmedGaber93 I don't think it matters anyway. All parts of this condition have to be true because of logical AND.

If it was the case that params would have different name but screen name stored in .name field of stateTopmostFullScreen and templateStateTopmostFullScreen were the same, the outcome would've been the same.

I still believe that checking only for name difference should be sufficient to navigate the user

     (stateTopmostFullScreen && 
         templateStateTopmostFullScreen && 
         stateTopmostFullScreen.name !== templateStateTopmostFullScreen.name && 
         !shallowCompare(stateTopmostFullScreen.params as Record<string, unknown> | undefined, templateStateTopmostFullScreen.params as Record<string, unknown> | undefined))

[ahmedGaber93]

@MrMuzyk I think if we remove shallowCompare the diff state for the example below will ignore and ScreenC not open

const stateTopmostFullScreen = {
  name: 'ScreenA',
  params: {},
}

const templateStateTopmostFullScreen = {
  name: 'ScreenA',
  params: {
    screen: 'ScreenB',
    params: {
      screen: 'ScreenC',
    },
  },
}

[MrMuzyk]

I think it wouldn't open anyway because name properties are the same which would cause whole condition to return false regardless of what comes after

&& stateTopmostFullScreen.name !== templateStateTopmostFullScreen.name &&

[ahmedGaber93]

Yeah, that is correct, so I think the condition should be

• if names are different, return true without check params
• if names are the same, check the params

// stateTopmostFullScreen.name !== templateStateTopmostFullScreen.name && !shallowCompare
stateTopmostFullScreen.name !== templateStateTopmostFullScreen.name || !shallowCompare

What do you think?

[MrMuzyk]

Ahh I get it now 😅 I agree - if screen name can come inside params then it would make sense to change the condition like on the line above you've posted

[ahmedGaber93]

I think this part of the code affected in many places. Could you please test it through the app and update your proposal?

[MrMuzyk]

Yes, will do!

[melvin-bot]

📣 @ahmedGaber93 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[MrMuzyk]

Opened a PR, tomorrow Im OOO. If anything comes up I will take care of this on friday

[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 9.0.1-19 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: Change navigating condition #43992

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-02. 🎊

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

• @MrMuzyk does not require payment (Contractor)
• @ahmedGaber93 requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)

[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:

• [@ahmedGaber93] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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:
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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:
• [@ahmedGaber93] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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:

[ahmedGaber93]

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:

• [@ahmedGaber93] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: update getPartialStateDiff.ts fullscreen diff #39442
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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/39442/files#r1663338154
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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
• [@ahmedGaber93] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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.

Regression Test Proposal

1. Go to Account setting > Workspaces > Create Workspace
2. Go to Members > Invite member > Invite any email address
3. Click on the invited member item to open Profile page then click on message user
4. Go to Account setting > Workspaces again
5. Click on any workspace to open its settings page and Verify it open successfully

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[trjExpensify]

Can you provide a bit more context on all the "N/As" in the checklist, please @ahmedGaber93?

[ahmedGaber93]

@trjExpensify updated.

[trjExpensify]

Cool, thanks. Paid!

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.3-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: Change navigating condition #43992

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-10. 🎊

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

• @MrMuzyk does not require payment (Contractor)
• @ahmedGaber93 requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)

[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:

• [@ahmedGaber93] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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:
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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:
• [@ahmedGaber93] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@ahmedGaber93] 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: