[HOLD for payment 2023-10-25] [$500] LHN - New 1:1 DM appears briefly in LHN without avatar and username when IOU is received

[lanitochka17]

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. Launch New Expensify app as User A
2. Keep app in the foreground
3. As User B, who has no chat history with User A, send a money request to User A

Expected Result:

The new 1:1 DM and IOU report show up on LHN without issue

Actual Result:

The new 1:1 DM appears without avatar and username briefly

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: 1.3.72-6

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

Bug6207763_Screen_Recording_20230920_235126_New_Expensify__1_.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Slack conversation:

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f7a7f916499f922b
• Upwork Job ID: 1704637836346048512
• Last Price Increase: 2023-10-04
• Automatic offers:
• abdulrahuman5196 | Reviewer | 27105842
• rojiphil | Contributor | 27105844

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @MitchExpensify (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

[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 @chiragsalian (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[MitchExpensify]

Unable to reproduce so far

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f7a7f916499f922b

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @MitchExpensify 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)

[MitchExpensify]

Reproduced, labelling External in case someone can beat @chiragsalian to the punch here!

[chiragsalian]

i can reproduce the issue as well. It also only occurs on staging and not production.

[chiragsalian]

I'm unfortunately not able to solve this today. I'll post on slack if someone else can investigate. If not i can continue with it tomorrow.

[thienlnam]

This looks pretty minor, so removing the deploy blocker label

[rojiphil]

Proposal

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

For User B, the LHN for a Chat Report from User A displays briefly without an avatar and username when a Money Request was initiated by User A and there was no chat history between User A and User B.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When User A initiates a chat with User B for the first time with a Money Request, User B will receive the request via pusher with bare minimum details. These initial details do not include an avatar and username and, hence, do not get displayed in LHN.

Since the report is not completely visible, FE will immediately initiate a ReconnectToReport API to fetch the complete Chat Report as shown here. Once the Chat Report arrives, the LHN displays the avatar and username.

This causes a brief display without an avatar and username.

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

The decision to include a report in LHN is decided by function shouldReportBeInOptionList here. The first thing we do in the function is to check if the report is ready for display. If not, we will not include it. In this case, we can additionally look for a valid type within the report to decide whether to include or not by making the following change at this location

Once the complete report details arrive at FE, the LHN will display correctly.

    if (
        !report ||
        !report.reportID ||
+       !report.type ||
        report.isHidden ||
        (report.participantAccountIDs &&
            report.participantAccountIDs.length === 0 &&
            !isChatThread(report) &&
            !isPublicRoom(report) &&
            !isArchivedRoom(report) &&
            !isMoneyRequestReport(report) &&
            !isTaskReport(report))
    ) {
        return false;
    }  

Test Video

lhn-delayfix.mp4

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[melvin-bot]

📣 @abdulrahuman5196 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

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

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[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 @rojiphil got assigned: 2023-10-09 18:19:38 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-10-16 22:42:09 UTC
• days elapsed: 5

On to the next one 🚀

[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 1.3.86-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• exclude reports in LHN that has no report type #29155

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-25. 🎊

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:

• @rojiphil requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @abdulrahuman5196 requires payment offer (Reviewer)

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:

• [@abdulrahuman5196] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@abdulrahuman5196] 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:
• [@abdulrahuman5196] 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:
• [@abdulrahuman5196] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@abdulrahuman5196] 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.
• [@MitchExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[MitchExpensify]

Payment summary:

• $750 @rojiphil requires payment offer (Contributor) (Upwork)
• $750 @abdulrahuman5196 requires payment offer (Reviewer) (Upwork)

[rojiphil]

Payment summary:

• $500 @rojiphil requires payment offer (Contributor) (Upwork)
• $500 @abdulrahuman5196 requires payment offer (Reviewer) (Upwork)

@MitchExpensify @abdulrahuman5196

Wanted to check if this qualifies for bonus payment as, I think, the issue got fixed before 3 days.
It was just that the final approval and merger from internal team member took some extra time.
What are your thoughts?

Here are the timeline details that I could gather:
Assigned : Oct. 09, 11:49 PM, GMT+5:30 link
Completed: Oct. 12, 04:27 PM, GMT+5:30 link
Time Taken: Approximately 2 days 17 hours.

[MitchExpensify]

Assigned:

Merged:

[MitchExpensify]

That looks over 3 days to me from assignment to merge but please let me know if I'm missing something!

[rojiphil]

That looks over 3 days to me from assignment to merge but please let me know if I'm missing something!

@MitchExpensify

You are right that assignment to merge took more than 3 days.
What I was just trying to point out here was that the work got done by C and C+ team within 3 days (screenshot below).
It was just that the final approval and merger took some time.

But, I am also fine with the payment summary you mentioned here

[abdulrahuman5196]

This would be eligible for bonus IMO. We do consider the bonus for similar issues as well since the PR review/approval was completed in 3 days, but wasn't merged internally and the PR didn't have changes after C+ approval as well.

[MitchExpensify]

Cool! I see what you are saying and I think that all sounds fair - Updating the payment summary

[rojiphil]

Received the payment. Thanks @MitchExpensify.

[MitchExpensify]

Paid and contracts ended 👍

Do we need regression steps @abdulrahuman5196 ?

[abdulrahuman5196]

The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
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:
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

Not a regression

Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
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.
Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

No. regression tests wouldn't be beneficial here.

@MitchExpensify

[MitchExpensify]

Cool, closing! Thanks, everyone

[abdulrahuman5196]

Cool, closing! Thanks, everyone

@MitchExpensify This issue is not closed 🤔