[$1000] Web - Still able to access Settings of archived room

[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 any admin or announce room of a deleted workspace
2. From browser url, change details to setting and press enter.
3. Notice that user still can access settings of archived room.

Expected Result:

If user go to settings room of archived room, NotFound page should show.

Actual Result:

User still able to access Settings of archived room

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: 1.3.44-0
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.2023-07-23.at.15.04.03.mov

Recording.3862.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @hungvu193
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1690099739690509

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c0f1f3e9199b5032
• Upwork Job ID: 1683571475272081408
• Last Price Increase: 2023-07-31

[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

[kbecciv]

Proposal

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

Still able to access Settings of archived room

What is the root cause of that problem?

We're not disabling user to access settings room when it's archived.

App/src/pages/settings/Report/ReportSettingsPage.js

Line 84 in cd851d0

<FullPageNotFoundView shouldShow={_.isEmpty(this.props.report) || shouldDisableSettings}>

App/src/pages/settings/Report/ReportSettingsPage.js

Line 69 in cd851d0

const shouldDisableSettings = ReportUtils.shouldDisableSettings(this.props.report);

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

We should add check for archived room to shouldDisableSettings condition:

 const shouldDisableSettings = ReportUtils.shouldDisableSettings(this.props.report) || ReportUtils.isArchivedRoom(this.props.report);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c0f1f3e9199b5032

[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 - @abdulrahuman5196 (External)

[alexxxwork]

Proposal

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

The room settings are available via deeplink even after room is archived

What is the root cause of that problem?

We have a separate function to determine if we should disable settings but we're missing the isArchivedRoom case

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

We should alter the shouldDisableSettings function in ReportUtils and add isArchivedRoom case:

function shouldDisableSettings(report) {
    return !isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && !isChatRoom(report) && !isChatThread(report) || isArchivedRoom(report);
}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[lschurr]

@abdulrahuman5196 could you review the proposals here?

[abdulrahuman5196]

Reviewing today

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[abdulrahuman5196]

@hungvu193 's proposal here #23471 (comment) has RCA correct and looks good and works well.
Other proposal here #23471 (comment) is a minor PR level improvement on @hungvu193 's proposal. So going with the first proposal.

🎀 👀 🎀
C+ Reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[luacmartins]

proposal LGTM

[luacmartins]

@hungvu193 can you please comment on this issue so I can assign it to you?

[hungvu193]

Sure

[hungvu193]

Hold on, this is actually fixed in here: #23907
So we can close this one. I'm not sure if I'm eligible for reporting bonus here?.

[luacmartins]

@hungvu193 in cases like this we typically just close the issue without compensation. That's because we want to address the root cause of issues instead of each instance of a bug that has the same root cause. Glad you worked on the fix for the other issue though! Keep it going!

[abdulrahuman5196]

@luacmartins Would C+ be partially compensated on this case, since we went till the review approval case? And this issue got fixed by other issue?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BvohU05MTaHnjOD_vwJv_aqDAirv-ChkyRnKCAvOVyQ/edit?pli=1

[luacmartins]

@abdulrahuman5196 thanks for raising this. After reviewing the doc and the Slack thread, it seems that we pay C+ the same amount that was decided by CME to be paid out to the contributor, so in this case it'd be $0.

Let me know if you feel like I'm misinterpreting the guidelines though!

[abdulrahuman5196]

I think its more of a gray area around here. I have seen issues where C+ was partially compensated even when contributor was not. So I think it comes to amount of effort invested. Just wanted to check since this came till proposal approval.

But anyways, I fine with either decision in this case, since its a straightforward issue and relatively less time spend on proposal review in comparison to my other issues which could have closed after investigation. So I am cool.
Thanks for checking and confirming. @luacmartins