CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

@Beamanator @fedirjh One of you needs to copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android / native
  • Android / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS / Desktop
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.3.9-12 🚀

Hey all - This caused a deploy blocker here: #18376

I reverted it here: #18380

@AndrewGable I'm currently investigating the unintended behavior.

Thanks.

cc @Beamanator , @Victor-Nyagudi

Problem

During my investigation of this regression, I discovered that a top-level (or "parent") div had a user-select: none; style applied to it. When this div is selected, any text within it is removed, and the div itself is removed from the selection, along with its descendant contents.

Solution

We should check for nested elements that have a user-select: text; style inside other elements whose style is user-select: none; and prevent them from being removed from selection

// Query all non selectable element that doesn’t have any child that have a selectable text
div.querySelectorAll('*[style*="user-select: none"]:not(:has(*[style*="user-select: text"]))')
    .forEach(item => item.remove());

I was just about to post my findings as you posted yours, @fedirjh.

Problem

I also discovered there are a couple of other components that have the user-select: none style applied. Some of these are an ancestor with a considerable number of children, grandchildren, etc., so when we remove any div with this style applied, the component and all its descendants are removed.

One of the bigger components being OfflineWithFeedback.

Solution

I explored two possible solutions with the first being the one I went with, and the second being one that could require a bit more work but is more future-proof, however, I'd require some input on it first.

• Option 1

From my search using VS Code's search tool, I discovered the only component using accessibilityHints.newMessageLineIndicator is UnreadActionIndicator, and the only component using UnreadActionIndicator is ReportActionItem.

Given only one message can be marked unread at a time and the single use-case scenario mentioned above, I opted to just grab the div with this accessibility label (localized, of course) and removed it from the copied items inside SelectionScraper.

// Get the div housing the UnreadActionIndicator and remove it from copied content
div.querySelector(`[aria-label="${Localize.translateLocal('accessibilityHints.newMessageLineIndicator')}"]`)
    .remove();

Should things change in future and multiple messages can be marked as unread, we can update this to div.querySelectorAll() to cover all those other unread message indicators.

Here are a couple of videos with my changes applied.

This is a very specific fix, though, and only covers UnreadMessageIndicator, but given its very limited use, there's a lower risk of regressions occurring.

As you can see, the emojis are now being copied again. In the previous solution in this PR that caused a regression, the emojis weren't being copied, so it looks like we may have been onto something in possibly fixing other issues involving copying emojis or inadvertently copying text.

On the other hand, I don't think it would be a bad idea to focus on one issue at a time, and then propose solutions to the other copying issues once this one is fixed with no regressions.

• Option 2 (Requires input)

I dabbled with the idea of components that should not be copied receiving a shouldElementBeCopiedToClipboard prop that would determine whether or not the component gets an attribute like data-shouldElementBeCopiedToClipboard="false".

We could then go through all the elements with this attribute set to true like before and remove them, but I felt like this would require a bigger change in terms of adding props to the component in the pages it's been used.

div.querySelectorAll(`div[data-shouldElementBeCopiedToClipboard="${shouldElementBeCopiedToClipboard}"]`)
    .forEach(item => item.remove());

I like @fedirjh proposal though. We could also go with that. Support for :has() has improved a lot, but it still needs to be enabled on Firefox i.e. not supported by default.

cc: @Beamanator

P.S. Notice how in the videos I've shared in this comment how copying the messages from the left side to right doesn't copy the emojis (text cursor is visible) but copying from the right side to left (default cursor) does.

Just some food for thought going forward.

@fedirjh @Victor-Nyagudi
Just sharing my opinion here.

I previously mentioned that this bug is a browser bug here #15194 (comment), but looks like everyone disagree with it (the bug isn't reproducible in Firefox). You can found the Chromium bug report from my comment. At first, I thought it's already fixed on the latest version of Chrome, but turns out it's still reproducible and also the commits getting reverted because of a regression.

I think the commit could be useful especially the test case. If I understand @fedirjh solution correctly, it will select the non selectable text for this case:

<div style="user-select: none">
    SKIP
    <div style="user-select: text">
        KEEP
    </div>
</div>

Result: SKIP KEEP

However, based on the chromium test case, only KEEP text should be copied. Here is one of the test case example on nested user-select

I think it would require a lot of changes to cover all cases without any regression. Even the chromium commits getting reverted 🤣. So, if I can suggest, I would go for the solution to only exclude the text on a specific component in the meantime, in this case the new message indicator, while waiting the full fix from Chromium, which I guess will be taking very long, not to mention Safari.

Thank you for the thorough investigation, @bernhardoj. Your explanation is very helpful. I suggest that we go with @Victor-Nyagudi's option 1, which will only exclude the text on a specific component, UnreadActionIndicator. We attempted to make a global fix for this issue, but it seems that it is not currently feasible. @Beamanator, what are your thoughts on this? What should be our next steps? Should we go with this option, or should we revisit the main issue and search for another global fix that addresses all cases?

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.3.12-0 🚀

I'm a little confused here.

This PR was reverted by @AndrewGable but has been deployed to production.

Is it the reverted PR that's been deployed to production and we're just being notified, or did something happen in between?

@Victor-Nyagudi yeah i can see that it's confusing, I looked at the changes made by the revert PR, and they're what's currently in the production branch

Thank you for the thorough investigation, @bernhardoj. Your explanation is very helpful. I suggest that we go with @Victor-Nyagudi's option 1, which will only exclude the text on a specific component, UnreadActionIndicator. We attempted to make a global fix for this issue, but it seems that it is not currently feasible. @Beamanator, what are your thoughts on this? What should be our next steps? Should we go with this option, or should we revisit the main issue and search for another global fix that addresses all cases?

@fedirjh I agree with this conclusion 👍

Since @Victor-Nyagudi is the author of this PR (which was reverted), @Victor-Nyagudi can you please make the fix PR & link it to the original issue & mention this one as well?

@Beamanator Got it.

I'll get to work on the PR.

Glad that's cleared up.

Thanks @Victor-Nyagudi 👍

PR is ready for review.

Let me know if there's anything else you need me to do.

cc: @fedirjh @Beamanator