[HOLD for payment 2023-08-17] [$1000] Web - invited members does not reflect in offline mode

[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. Create a workspace if not created
2. Go to offline
3. Go to Settings > Workspaces > Members
4. Click on invite button
5. Enter email which is not in list and invite that member
6. Tt will navigates to Members page
7. Check for member which you invited

Expected Result:

invited member should reflects in members list

Actual Result:

invited member does not reflect in offline mode

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: 1.3.33-4
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: y
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

Screen.Recording.2023-06-28.at.7.23.46.PM.1.mov

Recording.3313.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @gadhiyamanan
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1687960765759859

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01505e84ab8e8fed17
• Upwork Job ID: 1674841983137677312
• Last Price Increase: 2023-06-30

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @lschurr (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

[lschurr]

I'm not able to reproduce this. In offline mode, I invited a new user and could see them in the list.

[lschurr]

Bumped the Slack thread.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01505e84ab8e8fed17

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @lschurr is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @0xmiroslav (External)

[0xmiros]

Awaiting proposals

[gitvolo]

@0xmiroslav This issue seems to need a UX solution.
The actual workflow is: invite button click -> call API with AddMembersToWorkspace -> update members list with a new member when successful.
But when offline, couldn't call API for adding members instantly, so could not get the response and update the members list as well.

I suggest we need make sure this is the real issue and find more reliable expectations.
For example, we can add member item into list, but disabled or add waiting online tag.. something..

[rezkiy37]

Hi, I'm Michael (Mykhailo) from Callstack and I would like to work in this issue.

[rezkiy37]

It is reproducible.
I'd suggest to build an optimistic object that includes personal details. It is similar when users create a new group when they are offline.
This way we follow the Optimistic WITH Feedback Pattern.

Example

Create.offline.user.mp4

[rezkiy37]

Figuring our how to merge a local created invited user with one who comes from BE.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @0xmiroslav We're missing your Upwork ID to automatically send you an offer for the Reviewer role.
Once you apply to the Upwork job, your Upwork ID will be stored and you will be automatically hired for future jobs!

[melvin-bot]

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

Upwork job

[lschurr]

Not overdue.

[rezkiy37]

Daily updates:

Working on a solution how to add a new member to a workspace. I faced a problem when the app generates local users, it conflicts with the same upcoming users (but with other ids) from the backend. Looks like the app should not store the local generated users when a response comes.

Planning to test all possible cases tomorrow: offline+new user, offline+old user, offline+old users; online+new user, online+old user, online+old users.

[rezkiy37]

Daily updates:

1. Figured out a situation how to not conflict with local created and backend upcoming invited members.
2. Tested all cases mentioned above.
3. A proposal in on internal review now.

[rezkiy37]

Could someone please add "Reviewing" label here?

[melvin-bot]

@madmax330, @lschurr, @rezkiy37, @0xmiroslav Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[madmax330]

PR is in review

[melvin-bot]

@madmax330, @lschurr, @rezkiy37, @0xmiroslav Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[melvin-bot]

@madmax330, @lschurr, @rezkiy37, @0xmiroslav Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[rezkiy37]

The PR (#22410) was approved.
#22410 (review)

[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 1.3.52-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix invited members does not reflect in offline mode #22410

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-08-17. 🎊

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

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

• @rezkiy37 does not require payment (Contractor)
• @0xmiroslav requires payment

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]

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:

• [@0xmiroslav] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@0xmiroslav] 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:
• [@0xmiroslav] 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:
• [@0xmiroslav] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@0xmiroslav] 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]

It looks like the automation didn't work on this one, but here's the payment summary:

Bug reporter: @gadhiyamanan $250
Contributor+: @situchan $1000

Could you confirm that's correct @madmax330?

[lschurr]

Looking at the PR, does @0xmiroslav also need to be paid for reviewing? #22410

[situchan]

Looking at the PR, does @0xmiroslav also need to be paid for reviewing? #22410

yes, they did the initial review

[lschurr]

Ok, so new payment summary:

• Bug reporter: @gadhiyamanan $250
• Contributor+: @0xmiroslav $1000
• Contributor+: @situchan $1000

[lschurr]

@0xmiroslav could you work through the checklist and confirm whether we need a regression test? #21891 (comment)

[0xmiros]

Checklist is same as #22442 (comment)

[lschurr]

Payment for @0xmiroslav and @gadhiyamanan has been made in Upwork.

@situchan could you accept the invite I sent and apply for the job? https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01505e84ab8e8fed17

[situchan]

It seems invite is expired. I have no option to accept.

[lschurr]

Just sent an offer. Could you check if that worked @situchan?

[lschurr]

Add paid. Closing :)