-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[$250] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-10] Split bill - New group is created when splitting bill with the same users #40579
Comments
Triggered auto assignment to @joekaufmanexpensify ( |
@joekaufmanexpensify FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors |
ProposalPlease re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.Split bill - New group is created when splitting bill with the same users What is the root cause of that problem?We are not checking if the group chat exists or not before creating here Lines 3104 to 3119 in 9b2c518
What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?We should check if it already exists in onyx
currently
What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)Optonally we can update this line of code Lines 3088 to 3092 in 9b2c518
to
|
ProposalPlease re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.Split bill - New group is created when splitting bill with the same users What is the root cause of that problem?New feature What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?Add below code above this line
Update this line as follows What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional) |
Updated Only to add a refactored code for same solution |
I think this report is going to be obviated by a feature refactor we're working on. Discussing. |
Not overdue |
Bumped in slack |
Bumped 1:1 |
Flagged again in Slack. This is definitely #vip-split related. But don't want to make external just yet since I feel like there is a solid chance we will close this. |
@joekaufmanexpensify I'll take a look at the proposals tomorrow. |
Great. TY! |
@youssef-lr is going to look at proposals |
Still pending |
I will get to this this week |
Great. TY! |
@youssef-lr @joekaufmanexpensify this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to a solution? Let's make sure we're treating this as a top priority. Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks! |
@youssef-lr will you have a chance to circle back to this soon? If you think we should definitely change this behavior, also happy to assign a C+ so they do preliminary review for you |
@youssef-lr making this external for now so we can start to look at the proposals. When you have a sec, could you confirm if the solution in OP of the issue is what you wanted from the design doc? |
BugZero Checklist:
N/A
Yes.
Regression Test Proposal
Do we agree 👍 or 👎 |
@joekaufmanexpensify Hmm sorry, this is actually the expected behavior and not a bug. This issue seems like a miscommunication. @youssef-lr I think we should revert the PRs that "fixed" this? Where was it decided that we would change this behavior? I think it's going to be quite weird since if you happen to have the chat locally it would use the "existing group", but if you don't (e.g. in focus mode or soon pagination) then we will create a "new" group. Basically, all FAB flows create a new group always. If you want to split with the same people then you split via the |
Hey @marcaaron, the slack thread where it was discussed is a bit higher up in the issue, also here. The consensus from those working on the uneven splits project at the time was that we should change this behavior. If we no longer agree with that and want to revert it, no issues with me.
I don't think this piece was considered at the time. My 2c is if I have an existing chat with the exact same group, I would personally expect a split from FAB to go in that chat, whether or not you happen to have the chat locally. But if the standard for FAB actions is to consistently create a new group always, then makes sense to me that we'd keep the actions consistent. |
Payment SummaryBugZero Checklist (@joekaufmanexpensify)
|
Ok thanks, sorry, I missed that discussion and those links.
Yeah, I think this is the part that is confusing for me? If we are OK with having that inconsistency then that's fine. I think we fundamentally changed (or maybe "broke") our previous design with Group Chats. My 2 cents, if we want to give users the ability to split with an existing group then we should return Groups in the list of available options to split with and not auto select or create a new group depending on whether that group exists locally (which may not exist due to varying factors outside of the control of the user). |
That's fair! I see the argument of doing as you suggest, as it does seem a bit odd to have this one option with groups behave differently from every other option on FAB. I think that kinda matches my initial thoughts on this in OP of that slack thread too. But I am not super close to this project, so deferred to those working on the project. @arielgreen / @youssef-lr what do you both think? |
Bumped in Slack on how to proceed with this one. |
We landed on leaving this as is in Slack. We may change this again in the future, but this project is paused now, so no need to do that now. |
Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c9e84f7fad619cd5 |
Current assignee @Ollyws is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new. |
@FitseTLT offer sent for $250! |
@Ollyws please request $250 via NewDot whenever you're ready! |
Accepted |
@FitseTLT $250 sent and contract ended! |
Upwork job closed. |
Thanks everyone! |
Requested in ND. |
$250 approved for @Ollyws |
If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!
Version Number: 1.4.63-7
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/4496719
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): natnael.expensify+3@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team
Action Performed:
Expected Result:
New group shouldn't be created, and the split bill should be added to the existing group
Actual Result:
A second, new group is created
Workaround:
Unknown
Platforms:
Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?
Screenshots/Videos
Add any screenshot/video evidence
Bug6454834_1713538523579.Screen_Recording_2024-04-19_at_5.53.41_in_the_afternoon.mp4
View all open jobs on GitHub
Issue Owner
Current Issue Owner: @Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: