[HOLD for payment 2024-11-22] [$250] Search - Not here page appears when selecting a non-existing user and then going 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!

---

Version Number: 9.0.55-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: N/A
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/5140184
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): applausetester+bm176@applause.expensifail.com
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to https://staging.new.expensify.com/
2. Go offline
3. Click on the search icon at the top right
4. Search for a non-existing user
5. Click on the search result
6. Go online

Expected Result:

Not here page should not appear, and the chat with the non-existing user should remain visible

Actual Result:

Not here page appears when going online, which contradicts the behavior when performing these steps while online

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6649175_1730198793234.1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021851703015510861438
• Upwork Job ID: 1851703015510861438
• Last Price Increase: 2024-10-30
• Automatic offers:
• dukenv0307 | Contributor | 104740405
• NJ-2020 | Contributor | 104800732

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @isabelastisser

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @isabelastisser (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]

@isabelastisser 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

[lanitochka17]

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

[NJ-2020]

Same RCA as #51473

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021851703015510861438

[melvin-bot]

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

[isabelastisser]

Heads up, I will be OOO from Oct 31 until Nov 4, so please re-apply the Bug label and assign a new member if needed. Thanks!

[mkhutornyi]

I'll also be OOO soon so please reassign C+

[NJ-2020]

Proposal

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

Search - Not here page appears when selecting a non-existing user and then going online

What is the root cause of that problem?

It shows 404 page not found because we did not pass the emailList value when requesting to the OpenReport API after changing from offline to online

It's because when we select a non-existing user, the OpenReport API get called 2 times, first opening the non-existing user using OpenReport API params with emailList value from the search modal and the second time for viewing the report chat

App/src/pages/NewChatConfirmPage.tsx

Lines 101 to 108 in 652d2ff

	const createGroup = useCallback(() => {
	if (!newGroupDraft) {
	return;
	}
	const logins: string[] = (newGroupDraft.participants ?? []).map((participant) => participant.login);
	Report.navigateToAndOpenReport(logins, true, undefined, newGroupDraft.reportName ?? '', newGroupDraft.avatarUri ?? '', avatarFile, optimisticReportID.current, true);
	}, [newGroupDraft, avatarFile]);

After this PR #51093 we will replace duplicated OpenReport requests if the request.command and the report id is equal meaning it will replace the previous request with the latest one(viewing the report chat) if the report id and the request command is same, which will remove the emailList value (selecting the non-existing user)

App/src/libs/actions/Report.ts

Lines 982 to 983 in 652d2ff

	checkAndFixConflictingRequest: (persistedRequests) =>
	resolveDuplicationConflictAction(persistedRequests, (request) => request.command === WRITE_COMMANDS.OPEN_REPORT && request.data?.reportID === reportID),

So when we select non-existing user on offline mode and then go to online mode, we check if there's any duplicated API requests it will replace the previous request since the request command and the report id is same which will remove the emailList value which causing 404 page not found

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

We should also check if the previous request and the currentRequest if the emailList is same, then we will replace the previous request

API.paginate(CONST.API_REQUEST_TYPE.WRITE, WRITE_COMMANDS.OPEN_REPORT, parameters, {optimisticData, successData, failureData}, paginationConfig, {
    checkAndFixConflictingRequest: (persistedRequests) =>
        resolveDuplicationConflictAction(persistedRequests, (request) => request.command === WRITE_COMMANDS.OPEN_REPORT && request.data?.reportID === reportID && request.data?.emailList ===  parameters.emailList),
});

We can check also for other param like accountIDList if needed

Result

Screen.Recording.2024-10-30.at.18.41.15.mov

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[dukenv0307]

@isabelastisser I can take this issue as C+

[melvin-bot]

📣 @dukenv0307 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[dukenv0307]

@NJ-2020's proposal LGTM

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[dukenv0307]

@lakchote Can you please take a look at this issue when you have a chance? Thanks

[lakchote]

@NJ-2020's proposal LGTM.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @NJ-2020 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[melvin-bot]

@lakchote, @isabelastisser, @NJ-2020, @dukenv0307 Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[NJ-2020]

PR ready

cc: @dukenv0307

[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 9.0.62-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix selecting non-existing user in offline mode #52350

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-22. 🎊

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

• @NJ-2020 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @dukenv0307 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@dukenv0307 @isabelastisser @dukenv0307 The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[isabelastisser]

Payment summary:

Payment made in Upwork to @NJ-2020 - contributor $250

@dukenv0307, payment pending in NewDot - $250 C+.

[dukenv0307]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production
• 2b. Reported on staging (deploy blocker)
• 2c. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] 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/51093/files#r1855741040

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source 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

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again. Yes

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Test:

1. Open Expensify app
2. Go offline
3. Click on the search icon at the top right
4. Search for a non-existing user
5. Click on the search result
6. Go online
7. Make sure the not here page should not appear

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[dukenv0307]

@dukenv0307, please accept the offer in Upwork and I will process the payment. Thanks!

Hey @isabelastisser I'll request payment via NewDot.

[isabelastisser]

Payment summary.

[isabelastisser]

All set!

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @dukenv0307