[HOLD for payment 2024-03-13] [MEDIUM] Follow-ups to the LHN previews

[koko57]

Coming from: #30042

Tracking issue listing all of the issues that should be addressed in the follow-ups:

• [$500] [HOLD for payment 2024-01-18] Web - Double <Payer:> for IOU report preview in Search #33760 name is displayed twice for IOU previews in Search Page
• unify the logic for getting alternateText for getOptions and getOptionData (mentioned in this PR)
• name of the user sending a message in multiple users' chat is not displayed
• Drop usage of the originalMessage to get request amount and currency and use the linked transaction instead, coming from here
• Do not show the name of the user who modified the request Expense - LHN preview for request report shows owner name next to request edit system message #35515
• Do not show description for multiple request chat (reference)

Ideas for other improvements:

• move getting lastActor / actor display name to a separate function, try to move it out the functions called in getLastMessageTextForReport (create message text and get actor name separately then combine it)
• getReportPreviewMessage - pass an object with params instead of comma separated params

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @adelekennedy

[koko57]

cc @mountiny

[koko57]

working on this one - I've extracted the logic into a separate function, but it's still WIP

[mountiny]

Thanks!

[koko57]

@mountiny the function I extracted still had some problems. I thought that it would be maybe better to divide this refactor into smaller steps. First one - I created a function for getting lastActorName. I also moved the logic for creating alternate text for archived room to getLastMessageTextForReport - I think we should move as much logic for alternateText as possible there.

Let me know what you think about it and if I can open this PR for the review

[koko57]

@mountiny just to make sure it's an expected behaviour (found it on staging, after applying the changes it's still the same):
on the Search Page for archived rooms (workspace chats) we're displaying the reason for the member (pink underline), but a "Workspace" for the admin (blue unedrline). On LHN we're displaying the reason both for the member and the admin. Is that correct?

[mountiny]

Hmm I would say this should be same for user and the admin

[trjExpensify]

In search results, the workspace chat should be:

Admin/other participants

Tom Rhys Jones
Duraflame, Inc.

Member

Duraflame, Inc.
Workspace

[trjExpensify]

@mountiny Nikki reported this here, but there hasn't been an issue created for it yet.

[mountiny]

@trjExpensify So the fix is the other way we should not show the archive reason for any of them, right?

[trjExpensify]

I don't think this is about the archiveReason specifically, that probably just happens to be the last thing in the chat being previewed which is incorrect.

[koko57]

@trjExpensify I can fix it here 🙂

[trjExpensify]

Okay, excellent. I've linked that thread here so we don't create a dupe issue.

[mountiny]

@koko57 Just wanted to point out this issue which was raised by Pavlo here, lets focus on that one next in this case so we can remove the usage of the originalMessage.amount and .currency

[koko57]

ok! thanks for updating the list in the description!

[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 1.4.47-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Refactor/34411 lhn previews followup name for group chat #36591

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-03-13. 🎊

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

• @koko57 does not require payment (Contractor)

[mountiny]

Agata is ooo this week, not sure if there is anything left to do here. Going to wait for her to confirm

[mananjadhav]

@mountiny Can you assign me this issue for the C+ review?

[mountiny]

waiting for Agata to come back from ooo

[koko57]

I agree we can deprioritize the DX improvement. maybe we could separate it in its own issue and get someone else to look into this since you are focused on higher priority tasks

@mountiny yes! we can create a separate issue for that 😊
thanks

[mountiny]

Created a new issue #38220

@mananjadhav Can you please help me with the payment summary here?

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @adelekennedy (NewFeature), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/14418#:~:text=BugZero%20process%20steps%20for%20feature%20requests for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Reviewer: @mananjadhav owed $500 via NewDot
• Contributor: @koko57 is from an agency-contributor and not due payment

BugZero Checklist (@adelekennedy)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[mananjadhav]

@mananjadhav Can you please help me with the payment summary here?

@mountiny This got posted by the bot, is there anything else needed from me here? I can see multiple PRs previously here, and each of them has C+ assigned.

[mananjadhav]

quick bump here @mountiny. Meanwhile I am requesting my payout on the NewDot. Would be great if you can confirm the summary.

[mountiny]

@mananjadhav could you actually help me list out the PRs?

[mananjadhav]

@mountiny I can see 4 PRs overall linked with this issue:

@eVoloshchak reviewed the following, not sure if these are paid out. But both of them are merged more than a month ago:

• Refactor/34411 lhn previews refactor #34872
• fix: update lastActorAccountID for transactionThread #36219

@situchan reviewed #35818, for which they're already paid.

I (@mananjadhav) reviewed #36591

[mountiny]

I believe @eVoloshchak was not paid out but the two PRs were one original and second a regression fix. So I would say the payout would be $500 to @eVoloshchak

For @mananjadhav I assume classic $500 then.

Sounds good?

[mananjadhav]

Sounds good. @mountiny

[JmillsExpensify]

$500 approved for @mananjadhav based on summary.

[adelekennedy]

@eVoloshchak based on the above I sent you a contract on Upwork

[eVoloshchak]

@adelekennedy, thanks! No need for Upwork though, I've just requested the payment via NewDot

[JmillsExpensify]

$500 approved for @eVoloshchak based on summary.