[HOLD for payment 2024-08-13] [HOLD for payment 2024-08-09] [Search] Cleanups from #44820

[rushatgabhane]

From PR: #44820

1. We should maintain the list of selected items when switching from mobile to desktop layout.

Screen.Recording.2024-07-05.at.16.25.18.mov

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @puneetlath

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @puneetlath (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[rushatgabhane]

cc @trjExpensify #44820 (review)

[trjExpensify]

Super edge case, popping in polish.

[puneetlath]

@rushatgabhane are you handling this?

[rushatgabhane]

yeah i can implement this so that @filip-solecki can do priority stuff

[rushatgabhane]

not overdue

[filip-solecki]

FYI @Kicu is working on adding SearchContext, what should make it a lot easier to keep selected items while resizing - the PR is here

[Kicu]

hey thanks @filip-solecki for pointing this issue to me 🚀
Yes - together with @luacmartins we came to the conclusion that we have to drill too many props through listItems for SelectionList. Since I need a bit of search contextual data to make api calls (in a few different components), I decided to introduce SearchContext in the mentioned PR.

It would be best to wait a bit with this task until my PR is finished and merged. I expect it will take max 1-2 more days.
Cheers

[luacmartins]

@rushatgabhane this PR is merged and you can now use the SearchContext

[puneetlath]

@rushatgabhane how's it going?

[luacmartins]

Bump @rushatgabhane

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath @luacmartins @rushatgabhane 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!

[rushatgabhane]

working on this

[rushatgabhane]

@puneetlath im not close to a solution. I moved setIsMobileSelectionModeActive to context to keep the header consistent when switching between desktop/mobile. But I haven't been able to move the selectedReports and get selectedTransactions yet

@filip-solecki could you please take over this for implementation?

[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 9.0.15-9 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [Search] Move selectedTransactions array to SearchContext #46406

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-09. 🎊

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

• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @filip-solecki does not require payment (Contractor)

[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:

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

[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 9.0.16-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [Search] Move selectedTransactions array to SearchContext #46406

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-13. 🎊

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

• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @filip-solecki does not require payment (Contractor)

[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:

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

[puneetlath]

@rushatgabhane friendly reminder about the checklist so we can pay tomorrow.

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Reviewer: @rushatgabhane owed $250 via NewDot
• Contributor: @filip-solecki is from an agency-contributor and not due payment

BugZero Checklist (@puneetlath)

• 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

[puneetlath]

@rushatgabhane bump!

[melvin-bot]

@puneetlath, @luacmartins, @rushatgabhane, @filip-solecki Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[puneetlath]

@rushatgabhane bump again. Would love to close this out.

[rushatgabhane]

1. The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Not a bug. We didn't intentionally implement this.

2. 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: N.A.

3. 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: N.A.

4. Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. - Yes

5. 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

      1. On web, go to Search
      2. Select a few transactions
      3. Resize the screen to small size
      4. Verify that all the selected items on large screen are also selected after resizing on small screens and vice-versa.
   

[puneetlath]

Regression test issue: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/422390

Payment summary above is correct. Please request on NewDot. Thanks!

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @rushatgabhane