[HOLD for payment 2024-08-14] Report fields - Offline indicator appears below the content when edit to fields is disabled

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Issue found when validating #44672
Version Number: 9.0.10-2
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: n
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
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause internal team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Workspace is connected to Sage Intacct.
• Workspace has List type report fields by importing Departments as report fields in Accounting > Import settings.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace settings > Report fields.
3. Click on the List type report field (Departments) which is imported from Sage Intacct.
4. Go offline.

Expected Result:

Offline indicator will appear at the page bottom.

Actual Result:

Offline indicator appears below the content.
NOTE: This issue only happens when changes to report fields are disabled via connection to Accountings.

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

Bug6548205_1721491243056.ScreenRecording_07-20-2024_23-47-17_1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @garrettmknight / @abekkala

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @garrettmknight (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.

[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.

[melvin-bot]

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

[m-natarajan]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave-control

[Krishna2323]

Proposal

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

Report fields - Offline indicator appears below the content when edit to fields is disabled

What is the root cause of that problem?

shouldEnableMaxHeight isn't passed to ScreenWrapper.

App/src/pages/workspace/reportFields/ReportFieldsSettingsPage.tsx

Lines 63 to 67 in fa738c6

	<ScreenWrapper
	includeSafeAreaPaddingBottom={false}
	style={[styles.defaultModalContainer]}
	testID={ReportFieldsSettingsPage.displayName}
	>

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

Pass shouldEnableMaxHeight to ScreenWrapper.

We should also look for similar bugs in other components, I believe same bugs happens in ReportFieldsValueSettingsPage.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can add offlineIndicatorStyle={styles.mtAuto} instead of shouldEnableMaxHeight.

[mountiny]

Not a blocker as this feature is behind beta

[mountiny]

@waterim @rushatgabhane @shubham1206agra who can handle the PR for this given its coming from the report fields configuration project?

[melvin-bot]

@garrettmknight, @rushatgabhane, @mountiny, @shubham1206agra Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[garrettmknight]

@waterim @rushatgabhane @shubham1206agra bump on the question above.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @abekkala (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.

[garrettmknight]

@abekkala I'm heading OOO until August 5th. I'll pick this back up if it's still going when I get back. Thanks for your help!

[shubham1206agra]

I will take this on today.

[mountiny]

@shubham1206agra keep us updated, thanks! @rushatgabhane will you be able to review?

[rushatgabhane]

yes

[abekkala]

@shubham1206agra do you have an update?

[shubham1206agra]

Just finished investigating this issue. The problem was with how flex is working, not shouldEnableMaxHeight. I will raise the PR in few minutes.

[shubham1206agra]

PR is up for review.

[garrettmknight]

We're on staging! @abekkala I'll take this one back over, thanks for the help!

[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 9.0.17-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fixed offline indicator in report fields settings page #46431

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-14. 🎊

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

• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @shubham1206agra requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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 / @shubham1206agra] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@rushatgabhane / @shubham1206agra] 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 / @shubham1206agra] 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 / @shubham1206agra] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@rushatgabhane / @shubham1206agra] 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.
• [@garrettmknight / @abekkala] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[mountiny]

I think we can close this one as payments will be handled together for the project