[HOLD for payment 2023-06-29] Selecting/removing one user selects/removes all the user on split bill group page

[kbecciv]

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

---

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging dot on web chrome
2. Create a new group with multiple new users that you have not chatted before
3. Click on + in the group and select split bill
4. Enter amount and click on save/continue
5. On the split money page, notice there are multiple users in green checkmark selected.
6. Select the first user and notice all the other users are removed
7. Again, select any user and notice all the users are selected

Expected Result:

Selecting/removing one user should not selects/remove all the user on split bill group page

Actual Result:

Selecting/removing one user selects/removes all the user on split bill group page

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android / native
• Android / Chrome
• iOS / native
• iOS / Safari
• MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• MacOS / Desktop

Version Number: 1.3.29-0

Reproducible in staging?: yes

Reproducible in production?: no

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

Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

Recording.3140.mp4

green-2023-06-17_14.32.08.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: @priya-zha

Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1686991867243109

View all open jobs on GitHub

[OSBotify]

👋 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 @aldo-expensify (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[aldo-expensify]

Reproduced:

[aldo-expensify]

The selectedParticipants here:

App/src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.js

Line 153 in a1611f9

const formattedSelectedParticipants = getParticipantsWithAmount(selectedParticipants);

are missing the login:

@Beamanator do you know if that is expected? I see that the text contains the email. These accounts did not exist when I created the group with them.

[aldo-expensify]

it seems like in Onyx personalDetails we have two entries for the accounts created with the group, for example:

The account appears under a real ID (11033541), missing the login key, and under a front end generated ID (4331464817836459) which does have the login information.

Debugging, I see that the participant is passed around with the real ID 11033541, so when we look in personalDetails for the login information, it is just not there.

[Beamanator]

When I created a group w/ a user that didn't exist yet, I saw __fake__ in the LHN (mentioned in linked issue ^). I also noticed I see this in Onyx:

• Note: I didn't see literally any of this in main, only in Staging

[Beamanator]

And this too, due to optimistic accountIDs:

• Note: I DID see this in main and in Staging

[Beamanator]

Which also leads to Hidden showing in the report participants page (I know this has been reported elsewhere, i just want to add for complete investigation):

• Note: this DID happen in main and in Staging

[Beamanator]

On the "Split Bill" -> Confirm page (in main), I also saw:

• Console error: Warning: Encountered two children with the same key, .$1=2undefined (probably because we're keying off logins and the users don't have login in their personalDetails, but they do have displayName and accountID

[Beamanator]

PR up for this: #21113

[Beamanator]

Assigning @s77rt since they're reviewing the PR 👍 🙏

[luacmartins]

Removing the blocker label since we merged the PR and are CPing it.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[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 1.3.30-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix split bill display / selection with new users #21113

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-06-29. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[melvin-bot]

@Beamanator, @s77rt, @aldo-expensify Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @zanyrenney (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[aldo-expensify]

@zanyrenney I think this just needs payment handling.

@s77rt reviewed the PR #21113 which was fixing this deploy blocker

[aldo-expensify]

I'll be out of office next week, I don't think you need any action from me 👋

[zanyrenney]

Going to chat to @Beamanator to understand the latest here!

[zanyrenney]

Hi there! After discussing internally, seeing as technically @s77rt & @narefyev91 both helped test & review that PR and you are both C+ we will be splitting the payment so it does not warrant the full $1000 each. it should be $500 each.

• s77rt tested, but not on all platforms and left some good reviews - $500
• narefyev91 tested on all platforms but didn't really review as fully - paid outside upwork as a member of callstack.

[zanyrenney]

Payment on upwork sent for reporting bonus and C+ work from @s77rt . Closing this one out!