[HOLD for payment 2024-08-13] [HOLD for payment 2024-08-07] [$250] Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history #45855

lanitochka17 · 2024-07-20T21:30:37Z

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: 9.0.10-2
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Sign in to staging (Let's call this user A)
Click on FAB
Click on split expense
Enter an amount and click next
Enter a user you have never chatted with before (Let's call this user user B)
Click on next and finish the flow
Sign in as user B
Before opening the chat with user A observe the chat preview in LHN
(Important : Make sure that you haven't opened the chat with user A)

Expected Result:

The split expense preview in LHN shows the correct split amount

Actual Result:

The split expense amount in the LHN message preview shows 0.00 (Message preview is "User B owes 0.00)

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6548229_1721493192166.2024-07-20_19_08_12.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01756b0cd389a7093c
Upwork Job ID: 1815485176933143349
Last Price Increase: 2024-07-22
Automatic offers:

brunovjk | Reviewer | 103254818
tsa321 | Contributor | 103254819

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @Christinadobrzyn

melvin-bot · 2024-07-20T21:30:49Z

Triggered auto assignment to @Christinadobrzyn (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.

lanitochka17 · 2024-07-20T21:31:04Z

@Christinadobrzyn 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

lanitochka17 · 2024-07-20T21:31:25Z

We think that this bug might be related to #vip-split

tsa321 · 2024-07-22T05:47:53Z

Proposal

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

Split - Split amount shows owes 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history and after all expense paid.

What is the root cause of that problem?

Here

App/src/components/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHNData.tsx

Lines 62 to 69 in 0673b9b

    
           }, [ 
        
               fullReport, 
        
               lastReportActionTransaction, 
        
               reportActions, 
        
               personalDetails, 
        
               preferredLocale, 
        
               policy, 
        
               parentReportAction,

The OptionRowLHNData / OptionItem depends only on the reportActions which is itemReportActions (which is the reportActions of report of the option item set by OptionRowLHNData) and the parentReportActions.
When user receive split bills message:

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

Lines 699 to 708 in 0673b9b

    
           const iouReport = getReportOrDraftReport(ReportActionUtils.getIOUReportIDFromReportActionPreview(lastReportAction)); 
        
           const lastIOUMoneyReportAction = allSortedReportActions[iouReport?.reportID ?? '-1']?.find( 
        
               (reportAction, key): reportAction is ReportAction<typeof CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU> => 
        
                   ReportActionUtils.shouldReportActionBeVisible(reportAction, key) && 
        
                   reportAction.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE && 
        
                   ReportActionUtils.isMoneyRequestAction(reportAction), 
        
           ); 
        
           const reportPreviewMessage = ReportUtils.getReportPreviewMessage( 
        
               !isEmptyObject(iouReport) ? iouReport : null, 
        
               lastIOUMoneyReportAction,

the getReportPreviewMessage won't get the correct message, because lastIOUMoneyReportAction is undefined. This is because onyxUpdates from pusher isn't completed yet. When the onyxUpdates completed the OptionItem won't re-render because it doesn't depend on the reportActions of the iouReport. So it will stay 0.00, until the user receive new messages or user navigate to other report, which will re-render the LHNData.

In the code at:

App/src/components/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHNData.tsx

Lines 62 to 69 in 0673b9b

    
           }, [ 
        
               fullReport, 
        
               lastReportActionTransaction, 
        
               reportActions, 
        
               personalDetails, 
        
               preferredLocale, 
        
               policy, 
        
               parentReportAction,

)

the OptionRowLHNData or OptionItem relies on reportActions which is itemReportActions (which is the reportActions of the report associated with the option item set by OptionRowLHNData-- so it is not allReportActions), and parentReportActions.

When a user receives a split bill message, as detailed

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

Lines 699 to 708 in 0673b9b

    
           const iouReport = getReportOrDraftReport(ReportActionUtils.getIOUReportIDFromReportActionPreview(lastReportAction)); 
        
           const lastIOUMoneyReportAction = allSortedReportActions[iouReport?.reportID ?? '-1']?.find( 
        
               (reportAction, key): reportAction is ReportAction<typeof CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU> => 
        
                   ReportActionUtils.shouldReportActionBeVisible(reportAction, key) && 
        
                   reportAction.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE && 
        
                   ReportActionUtils.isMoneyRequestAction(reportAction), 
        
           ); 
        
           const reportPreviewMessage = ReportUtils.getReportPreviewMessage( 
        
               !isEmptyObject(iouReport) ? iouReport : null, 
        
               lastIOUMoneyReportAction,

the getReportPreviewMessage function does not retrieve the correct message because lastIOUMoneyReportAction is undefined. This occurs because the onyxUpdates from Pusher have not completed yet. Once the onyxUpdates are complete, the OptionItem does not re-render because it does not depend on the reportActions of the iouReport. As a result, it will continue to display 0.00 until the user receives new messages or navigates to another report, triggering a re-render of the LHNData.

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

We should add a dependency for the OptionItem to rely on the reportActions of the IOUReport or reports that are associated with the last message of the item's report. To achieve this, we could create utility functions in OptionsListUtils to retrieve the relevant report IDs (in this issue it is the iouReport.reportID).

The code could be:

function getIOUReportIDOfLastAction(report) {
    const lastAction = visibleReportActionItems[report.reportID];
    if (ReportActionUtils.isReportPreviewAction(lastAction)) {
        return getReportOrDraftReport(ReportActionUtils.getIOUReportIDFromReportActionPreview(lastAction))?.reportID;
    }
}

We could name it getIOUReportIDOfLastAction. If we need more generalized report IDs, we could name it getReportIDsRelatedToLastAction.

Then in LHNOptionList, within renderItem, we would then add:

const iouReportIDOfLastAction = OptionsListUtils.getIOUReportIDOfLastAction(itemFullReport);
const itemIouReportReportActions = !!iouReportIDOfLastAction ? reportActions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${iouReportIDOfLastAction}`] : undefined;

This addition ensures that the OptionItem appropriately depends on relatedReportIDsReportActions or in this issue: iouReportReportActions.

Next, add itemIouReportReportActions to the properties of OptionRowLHNData. Then, within the useMemo of OptionItem, include IOUReportReportActions as a dependency.

Result:

macos-web-d.mp4

Result

Alternative solutions

We could add dependency of the OptionItem to depend on all report actions, but this is very inefficient

Christinadobrzyn · 2024-07-22T18:36:37Z

I'm not able to reproduce this, I see the correct amount in the LHN of the split user.

I'll ask QA for some more details on how to reproduce this. #45855

MelvinBot · 2024-07-22T18:37:07Z

This has been labelled "Needs Reproduction". Follow the steps here: https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/16989

kavimuru · 2024-07-22T20:11:57Z

Sign in as User A
Sign in as user B in another browser or in cognito
As user A split expense with User B (Make sure that the users have no previous chat history)
After the split expense is created observe the LHN in the tab where you are logged in as user B (Before opening the chat)

2024-07-22.22.53.33.mp4

Christinadobrzyn · 2024-07-22T20:32:35Z

I'm not getting the same results - I see the actual amount that was split in the LHN but it sounds like QA has been able to reproduce this so we'll keep moving it forward.

Starting with this as an external job

melvin-bot · 2024-07-22T20:32:52Z

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01756b0cd389a7093c

melvin-bot · 2024-07-22T20:32:57Z

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

brunovjk · 2024-07-22T20:38:23Z

I will reproduce and review proposal first thing in the morning.

tsa321 · 2024-07-22T23:22:38Z

@Christinadobrzyn another way to reproduce it:

User A opens a chat with user B.
User A pays off all debts owed to user B.
User A opens another chat, for example, Concierge.
User B sends a split IOU request to user A.
Note that in the LHN chat with user B, user A sees "... owes 0.00".

brunovjk · 2024-07-23T12:48:13Z

I was able to reproduce the issue consistently.
@tsa321 your proposal makes sense to me, but I didn't get to test it 100%. Would you mind to share a test-branch? Thanks.

tsa321 · 2024-07-24T03:40:16Z

@brunovjk this is the test branch: https://github.com/tsa321/App/tree/fixLhnDisplaysOwes000

brunovjk · 2024-07-24T13:13:19Z

Thank you very much for the test branch, look good to me. We can go with @tsa321's proposal.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

melvin-bot · 2024-07-24T13:13:29Z

Triggered auto assignment to @neil-marcellini, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

neil-marcellini · 2024-07-24T20:35:30Z

We can go with @tsa321's proposal.

I agree, assigning.

melvin-bot · 2024-07-24T20:35:50Z

📣 @brunovjk 🎉 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

tsa321 · 2024-07-25T07:25:04Z

@brunovjk PR is ready

melvin-bot · 2024-07-31T19:26:27Z

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

melvin-bot · 2024-07-31T19:26:31Z

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.14-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

Fix LHN displays "...owes 0.00" when user receives split request message #46166

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-07. 🎊

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

@brunovjk requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
@tsa321 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

melvin-bot · 2024-07-31T19:26:32Z

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:

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

melvin-bot · 2024-08-06T03:52:56Z

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

melvin-bot · 2024-08-06T03:53:00Z

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:

[No QA] Code clean up, change variable name and add comment in lhn option list #46632

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

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

@brunovjk requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
@tsa321 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

melvin-bot · 2024-08-06T03:53:01Z

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:

[@brunovjk] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
[@brunovjk] 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:
[@brunovjk] 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:
[@brunovjk] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
[@brunovjk] 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.
[@Christinadobrzyn] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/418884

brunovjk · 2024-08-06T17:09:00Z

[@brunovjk] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: N/A
[@brunovjk] 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
[@brunovjk] 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
[@brunovjk] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Yes
[@brunovjk] 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.

Regression Test Proposal:

User A opens a chat with user B.
User A pays off all debts owed to user B.
User A opens another chat, for example, Concierge.
User B sends a split IOU request to user A.
Verify that in the LHN chat with user B, user A sees correct split amount.

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

Christinadobrzyn · 2024-08-08T16:44:31Z

Payouts due:

Contributor: $250 @tsa321 (Paid in Upwork - https://www.upwork.com/nx/wm/offer/103254819)
Contributor+: $250 @brunovjk (Paid in Upwork - https://www.upwork.com/nx/wm/offer/103254818)

Regression test - https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/418884

Christinadobrzyn · 2024-08-09T17:38:36Z

We've got a few more days before payday.

Christinadobrzyn · 2024-08-12T16:21:26Z

tomorrow is day 7 so we'll pay out based on this payment summary - #45855 (comment)

Christinadobrzyn · 2024-08-13T15:48:44Z

Payment day - paid based on this payment summary

Closing as complete

lanitochka17 added Daily KSv2 Bug Something is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager. labels Jul 20, 2024

melvin-bot bot assigned Christinadobrzyn Jul 20, 2024

Christinadobrzyn added the Needs Reproduction Reproducible steps needed label Jul 22, 2024

Christinadobrzyn added External Added to denote the issue can be worked on by a contributor and removed Needs Reproduction Reproducible steps needed labels Jul 22, 2024

melvin-bot bot changed the title ~~Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history~~ [$250] Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history Jul 22, 2024

melvin-bot bot added the Help Wanted Apply this label when an issue is open to proposals by contributors label Jul 22, 2024

melvin-bot bot assigned brunovjk Jul 22, 2024

melvin-bot bot assigned neil-marcellini Jul 24, 2024

neil-marcellini assigned tsa321 Jul 24, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Help Wanted Apply this label when an issue is open to proposals by contributors label Jul 24, 2024

melvin-bot bot added Weekly KSv2 Awaiting Payment Auto-added when associated PR is deployed to production and removed Weekly KSv2 labels Jul 31, 2024

melvin-bot bot changed the title ~~[$250] Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history~~ [HOLD for payment 2024-08-07] [$250] Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history Jul 31, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Reviewing Has a PR in review label Jul 31, 2024

tsa321 mentioned this issue Aug 1, 2024

[No QA] Code clean up, change variable name and add comment in lhn option list #46632

Merged

50 tasks

melvin-bot bot added Reviewing Has a PR in review Weekly KSv2 and removed Weekly KSv2 labels Aug 1, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Reviewing Has a PR in review label Aug 6, 2024

melvin-bot bot added Daily KSv2 and removed Weekly KSv2 labels Aug 7, 2024

melvin-bot bot added the Overdue label Aug 12, 2024

melvin-bot bot removed the Overdue label Aug 12, 2024

Christinadobrzyn closed this as completed Aug 13, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-13] [HOLD for payment 2024-08-07] [$250] Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history #45855

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-13] [HOLD for payment 2024-08-07] [$250] Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history #45855

lanitochka17 commented Jul 20, 2024 •

edited by melvin-bot bot

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 20, 2024

lanitochka17 commented Jul 20, 2024

lanitochka17 commented Jul 20, 2024

tsa321 commented Jul 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Christinadobrzyn commented Jul 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

MelvinBot commented Jul 22, 2024

kavimuru commented Jul 22, 2024

Christinadobrzyn commented Jul 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 22, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 22, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 22, 2024

tsa321 commented Jul 22, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 23, 2024

tsa321 commented Jul 24, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 24, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 24, 2024

neil-marcellini commented Jul 24, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 24, 2024

tsa321 commented Jul 25, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 6, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 6, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 6, 2024 •

edited by Christinadobrzyn

Loading

brunovjk commented Aug 6, 2024

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 9, 2024

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 12, 2024

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 13, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-13] [HOLD for payment 2024-08-07] [$250] Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history #45855

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-13] [HOLD for payment 2024-08-07] [$250] Split - Split amount shows 0.00 in LHN when splitting an expense with no chat history #45855

Comments

lanitochka17 commented Jul 20, 2024 • edited by melvin-bot bot Loading

Action Performed:

Expected Result:

Actual Result:

Workaround:

Platforms:

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 20, 2024

lanitochka17 commented Jul 20, 2024

lanitochka17 commented Jul 20, 2024

tsa321 commented Jul 22, 2024 • edited Loading

Proposal

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

What is the root cause of that problem?

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

Alternative solutions

Christinadobrzyn commented Jul 22, 2024 • edited Loading

MelvinBot commented Jul 22, 2024

kavimuru commented Jul 22, 2024

Christinadobrzyn commented Jul 22, 2024 • edited Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 22, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 22, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 22, 2024

tsa321 commented Jul 22, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 23, 2024

tsa321 commented Jul 24, 2024

brunovjk commented Jul 24, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 24, 2024

neil-marcellini commented Jul 24, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 24, 2024

tsa321 commented Jul 25, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 6, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 6, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 6, 2024 • edited by Christinadobrzyn Loading

brunovjk commented Aug 6, 2024

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 9, 2024

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 12, 2024

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 13, 2024

lanitochka17 commented Jul 20, 2024 •

edited by melvin-bot bot

Loading

tsa321 commented Jul 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Christinadobrzyn commented Jul 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Christinadobrzyn commented Jul 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 6, 2024 •

edited by Christinadobrzyn

Loading

Christinadobrzyn commented Aug 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading