[HOLD for payment 2024-08-20] Expense - Reply in thread option is missing for system message after rejoining thread

[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: v9.0.19-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
Found when validating PR : #46640
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): applausetester+kh050806@applause.expensifail.com
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 workspace chat.
3. Submit an expense.
4. Go to transaction thread.
5. Edit any field and save it.
6. Right click on system message > Reply in thread.
7. Click on the report header > Leave.
8. Right click on system message > Join thread.
9. Right click on system message again.

Expected Result:

The system message will have Reply in thread option after rejoining thread.

Actual Result:

Reply in thread option is missing for system message after rejoining thread.

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

Bug6569730_1723462870661.join.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @lschurr (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.

[izarutskaya]

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

[izarutskaya]

Production

Recording.2744.mp4

[bernhardoj]

This comes from my PR. Opened up a new PR to fix this.

[Beamanator]

@bernhardoj @mkhutornyi any update here? Looks like #47234 was started to fix this bug, but @mkhutornyi thinks there might be some other bug, right? What's next?

[bernhardoj]

@Beamanator I think @mkhutornyi just asking for confirmation, which I replied on the PR.

[Beamanator]

ahaa ok great! Looks like y'all are moving this along, thanks! 🙏

[Beamanator]

Working well in staging!

[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 9.0.19-11 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Fix reply in thread missing after rejoined system message thread #47234

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-20. 🎊

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

• @bernhardoj requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @mkhutornyi 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:

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

[lschurr]

Just clarifying @bernhardoj @Beamanator - was there a regression here or is full payment due for the PR?

[bernhardoj]

This issue was discovered after my PR, but the issue actually existed before, so I'm not sure if a payment is eligible here. It would be nice if there is though 😄

cc: @Beamanator @mkhutornyi

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Reviewer: @bernhardoj owed $250 via NewDot
• ROLE: @mkhutornyi paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@lschurr)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[lschurr]

Double checking on this one internally before moving forward with payments.

[mallenexpensify]

@mkhutornyi and @bernhardoj we're discussing the regression internally, I commented

I think this falls into here in the C+ doc

If regressions are found that “should have”* been caught after the PR has been approved,

and

*“Should have” = C+ should have caught the bug by fully following the checklist. If C+ skips a step or completed the checklist incompletely, payment will be cut in half. Exceptions can be made by the assigned internal engineer for large PRs that introduce new functionality.

and @Beamanator commented

Yeah that sounds like it to me too - I'm pretty sure in the checklist we have some points about testing any changes to a component everywhere that that component is used - which soundsssssss like is what they admitted to missing

@mkhutornyi @bernhardoj do you agree the regression was caused because something was missed that you should have caught?

[bernhardoj]

I don't think it's easy to catch since the issue only happens in a one-expense report, while we are testing on a transaction thread level. The issue is also happening in prod, but on a normal message, not on a system message since we are not able to reply in thread a system message before.

[lschurr]

Thanks for the discussion! We've decided to pay as normal.

Payment Summary:

• Contributor: $250 @bernhardoj (Please request in NewDot)
• Reviewer: $250 @mkhutornyi (Paid in Upwork)

[bernhardoj]

Thanks! Requested in ND.

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @bernhardoj