[SMARTSCAN] [HOLD for payment 2023-11-02] [$500] LOW: Keyboard shouldn't be active/enabled automatically for request details

[JmillsExpensify]

We automatically enable the mobile keyboard for requests, which is inconsistent with the behavior for reports. Given that a comment is completely optional, let's bring request details inline with reports and not enable the keyboard until the comment input is tapped.

Example of the inconsistency in behavior (note: I specifically tapped in the report comment input, but did not do the same for the request details, yet the keyboard was automatically enabled.

RPReplay_Final1693851386.MP4

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~011deba88779e69bde
• Upwork Job ID: 1698762396132085760
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-04
• Automatic offers:
• Pujan92 | Contributor | 26521898

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @JmillsExpensify is eligible for the Bug assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~011deba88779e69bde

[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

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[Pujan92]

I think it is intentional to focus the input when the report chat is empty.

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/ComposerWithSuggestions.js

Lines 113 to 114 in d2bdaec

	const isEmptyChat = useMemo(() => _.size(reportActions) === 1, [reportActions]);
	const shouldAutoFocus = !modal.isVisible && (shouldFocusInputOnScreenFocus || isEmptyChat) && shouldShowComposeInput;

[jeet-dhandha]

Proposal

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

• Distance Request Details Page opening keyborad automatically which is not required.

What is the root cause of that problem?

• isEmptyChat is getting triggered on page load, which autoFocuse's ComposerWithSuggestions component.

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

• We can first get the transaction for current reportID in ComposerWithSuggestions component.

transaction: {
    key: ({reportID}) => {
        const report = ReportUtils.getReport(reportID);
        const parentReportAction = ReportActionsUtils.getParentReportAction(report);
        const transactionID = lodashGet(parentReportAction, ['originalMessage', 'IOUTransactionID'], 0);
        return `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionID}`;
    },
},

• Then we can check if the transaction is distance request or not.

const isDistanceRequest = TransactionUtils.isDistanceRequest(transaction);

• Then we update the shouldAutoFocus constant and check if its not a distance request.

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/ComposerWithSuggestions.js

Line 114 in 1c8eaa7

const shouldAutoFocus = !modal.isVisible && (shouldFocusInputOnScreenFocus || isEmptyChat) && shouldShowComposeInput;

- const shouldAutoFocus = !modal.isVisible && (shouldFocusInputOnScreenFocus || isEmptyChat) && shouldShowComposeInput;
+ const shouldAutoFocus = !isDistanceRequest && !modal.isVisible && (shouldFocusInputOnScreenFocus || isEmptyChat) && shouldShowComposeInput;

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

• N/A

[crisps0914]

Hi
I want to contribute to Expensify.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @crisps0914! 📣
Hey, it seems we don’t have your contributor details yet! You'll only have to do this once, and this is how we'll hire you on Upwork.
Please follow these steps:

1. Get the email address used to login to your Expensify account. If you don't already have an Expensify account, create one here. If you have multiple accounts (e.g. one for testing), please use your main account email.
2. Get the link to your Upwork profile. It's necessary because we only pay via Upwork. You can access it by logging in, and then clicking on your name. It'll look like this. If you don't already have an account, sign up for one here.
3. Copy the format below and paste it in a comment on this issue. Replace the placeholder text with your actual details.
   
   Format:

Contributor details
Your Expensify account email: <REPLACE EMAIL HERE>
Upwork Profile Link: <REPLACE LINK HERE>

[Pujan92]

Proposal

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

Don't focus input for transaction threads

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are currently focusing the input whenever the report chat is empty irrespective of any report type.

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

We can add a condition to prevent focusing the input when the report is a transaction thread even if it is empty. I think the transaction/money request details usually user only checks instead of replying over there so makes sense to avoid focusing the input specific to this scenario.

const parentReportAction = ReportActionsUtils.getParentReportAction(report);

With isEmptyChat add, (isEmptyChat && !ReportActionsUtils.isTransactionThread(parentReportAction))

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionCompose/ComposerWithSuggestions.js

Line 114 in f77a5a5

const shouldAutoFocus = !modal.isVisible && (shouldFocusInputOnScreenFocus || isEmptyChat) && shouldShowComposeInput;

[JmillsExpensify]

@Pujan92 we're focusing the input on chat reports, which I think makes sense. However, I'm not sure that it makes sense for expense report chats and same for the request details view – at least on small screen sizes. @trjExpensify do you agree?

[trjExpensify]

I think what @Pujan92 is saying is that any report type that's empty, the composer is focused. Presumably, that's because you're navigating to it for the first time to start a conversation.

So I agree, for the request transaction thread the composer shouldn't be focused just because there aren't any report comments or system messages in it. You could (and probably more likely) be there to edit a field, just view the request data etc.

[JmillsExpensify]

Cool, agreed. @Pujan92 let us know if you have any other questions!

[sagarguhe]

Hi, I want to contribute to Expensify

[melvin-bot]

📣 @sagarguhe! 📣
Hey, it seems we don’t have your contributor details yet! You'll only have to do this once, and this is how we'll hire you on Upwork.
Please follow these steps:

1. Get the email address used to login to your Expensify account. If you don't already have an Expensify account, create one here. If you have multiple accounts (e.g. one for testing), please use your main account email.
2. Get the link to your Upwork profile. It's necessary because we only pay via Upwork. You can access it by logging in, and then clicking on your name. It'll look like this. If you don't already have an account, sign up for one here.
3. Copy the format below and paste it in a comment on this issue. Replace the placeholder text with your actual details.
   
   Format:

Contributor details
Your Expensify account email: <REPLACE EMAIL HERE>
Upwork Profile Link: <REPLACE LINK HERE>

[sagarguhe]

Contributor details
Your Expensify account email: sagarguhe@gmail.com
Upwork Profile Link: https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/sagarguhe

[melvin-bot]

✅ Contributor details stored successfully. Thank you for contributing to Expensify!

[trjExpensify]

Hi, I want to contribute to Expensify

Hi, @sagarguhe, you can follow the steps in the contributing.md file to join our slack channels to submit bugs and check out the format for proposals.

[trjExpensify]

@Santhosh-Sellavel - are you available now to review this proposal and progress the PR review?

[allroundexperts]

Thanks for your proposal @jeet-dhandha. We don't want to tie this specifically to the distance requests. Rather we're interested in applying this to all the transaction threads.

@Pujan92's proposal makes more sense looks good to me!

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[dylanexpensify]

@allroundexperts can we get review asap? 🙇‍♂️

[dylanexpensify]

bump @allroundexperts

[JmillsExpensify]

Looks like this is now with @srikarparsi for review.

[melvin-bot]

Based on my calculations, the pull request did not get merged within 3 working days of assignment. Please, check out my computations here:

• when @Pujan92 got assigned: 2023-09-06 07:35:45 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-10-24 18:04:13 UTC
• days elapsed: 34

On to the next one 🚀

[JmillsExpensify]

Linked PR is merged, waiting for it to hit production.

[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 1.3.91-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix: Keyboard shouldn't be active/enabled automatically for request details #29086

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-11-02. 🎊

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:

• @Pujan92 requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @allroundexperts does not require payment (Eligible for Manual Requests)

[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:

• [@allroundexperts] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@allroundexperts] 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:
• [@allroundexperts] 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:
• [@allroundexperts] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@allroundexperts] 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.
• [@JmillsExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[JmillsExpensify]

@allroundexperts Do you mind kicking off the BZ checklist and we can get payments issued?

[allroundexperts]

Checklist

1. I think this was more of a feature request / behaviour change. So there is no PR that is to be pinned.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. A regression test would help.

Regression test

1. On iOS Safari, request money from any user.
2. Open the chat -> IOU report -> IOU details.
3. Verify that the comment field on the details page is not auto focused.

Do we 👍 or 👎 ?

[JmillsExpensify]

Payment summary:

Issue reporter: N/A
Contributor: $750 @Pujan92
Contributor+: $750 @allroundexperts

If that looks good to everyone I'll issue payment.

[allroundexperts]

@JmillsExpensify This PR was merged within 3 days. However, there was a false alarm that this PR was associated with a deploy blocker and was reverted. We had re-create this PR and merge it again. That's why you see 34 days 😄

[JmillsExpensify]

Ok, thanks! I checked the PR and that makes sense. I've updated the payment summary as a result.

[JmillsExpensify]

Alright, paid @Pujan92 the difference, created regression test, and @allroundexperts is paid via NewDot. Closing this issue out.

[JmillsExpensify]

$750 payment approved for @allroundexperts based on this comment.