Fix recent report is missing from the assignee list #41232

bernhardoj · 2024-04-29T16:44:15Z

Details

A regression from #40271. The recent section is missing.

Fixed Issues

$ #41138
$ #37519
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Same as QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Log in as a user that had previously created tasks.
Click on FAB and select Assign task
Enter title and click next button
Click on Assignee
Verify there is a Recent section in the list

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
- I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
- I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
- I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
- I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
- I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-04-29T16:44:20Z

@mananjadhav Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

bernhardoj · 2024-04-29T16:50:35Z

Additional video showing the original issue is still fixed.

Screen.Recording.2024-04-30.at.00.47.14.mov

mananjadhav · 2024-04-29T17:22:11Z

@bernhardoj Can you fix the lint issues.

bernhardoj · 2024-04-29T17:26:28Z

So, filtering out the current user isn't enough because there is a report that includes the current user as the participant, for example, policy expense chat. I think we should use the visibleChatMemberAccountIDs back and use my previous solution back

What do you think?

Will fix the lint after I get the confirmation above

mananjadhav · 2024-04-29T17:32:24Z

I think I am going to ask @marcochavezf to confirm this.

rlinoz · 2024-04-29T17:44:36Z

visibleChatMemberAccountIDs is being deprecated, so we should keep moving away from it. I think the real fix here is to update the createOption function and fix how we evaluate hasMultipleParticipants.

mananjadhav · 2024-04-29T17:57:52Z

Then can we treat this as a separate task instead of a regression? @bernhardoj and I can still take this forward, if it works for them.

bernhardoj · 2024-04-30T09:51:38Z

After reading through the code, we can fix the hasMultipleParticipants condition, but the participant list is being used for multiple things too. I think it would require a bigger refactor, so I think we should just filter out the current user from the participant list only if it's a 1:1 chat.

This way, we would have the same behavior as the previous one. Anyone agree?

rlinoz · 2024-04-30T14:06:53Z

Then can we treat this as a separate task instead of a regression?

Why this would not be a regression anymore?

rlinoz · 2024-04-30T14:07:23Z

After reading through the code, we can fix the hasMultipleParticipants condition, but the participant list is being used for multiple things too. I think it would require a bigger refactor, so I think we should just filter out the current user from the participant list only if it's a 1:1 chat.
This way, we would have the same behavior as the previous one. Anyone agree?

I think this would work, yep.

bernhardoj · 2024-04-30T14:26:22Z

Updated! Please check!

rlinoz · 2024-04-30T14:28:48Z

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

+            } else {
+                accountIDs = Object.keys(report.participants ?? {}).map(Number);
+                if (ReportUtils.isOneOnOneChat(report)) {
+                    // For 1:1 chat, we don't want to include currentUser as participants


Suggested change

// For 1:1 chat, we don't want to include currentUser as participants

// For 1:1 chat, we don't want to include currentUser as participants in order to not mark 1:1 chats as having multiple participants

rlinoz · 2024-04-30T14:29:27Z

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

+        } else {
+            accountIDs = Object.keys(report.participants ?? {}).map(Number);
+            if (ReportUtils.isOneOnOneChat(report)) {
+                // For 1:1 chat, we don't want to include currentUser as participants


Suggested change

// For 1:1 chat, we don't want to include currentUser as participants

// For 1:1 chat, we don't want to include currentUser as participants in order to not mark 1:1 chats as having multiple participants

rlinoz

LGTM!

mananjadhav · 2024-05-01T08:44:22Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android-recent-assignee.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome-recent-assignee.mov

iOS: Native

ios-recent-assignee.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari-recent-assignee.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web-recent-assignee.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-recent-assignee.mov

marcochavezf

LGTM, thank you guys!

OSBotify · 2024-05-01T19:08:56Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2024-05-07T01:37:43Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.4.70-5 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

filter out current user

694873f

bernhardoj requested a review from a team as a code owner April 29, 2024 16:44

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team April 29, 2024 16:44

melvin-bot bot requested a review from mananjadhav April 29, 2024 16:44

bernhardoj mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2024

Task – Recents missing in the list of assignees in a task creation flow #41138

Closed

6 tasks

bernhardoj added 2 commits April 30, 2024 22:19

Merge branch 'main' into fix/recent-list-missing

1e84186

filter out current user for 1:1 chat only

cd1d9b9

rlinoz requested changes Apr 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

prettier and update comment

9e70a0a

rlinoz approved these changes Apr 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

mananjadhav approved these changes May 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from marcochavezf May 1, 2024 08:44

marcochavezf approved these changes May 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcochavezf merged commit c417a45 into Expensify:main May 1, 2024
16 of 18 checks passed

rayane-d mentioned this pull request May 1, 2024

[$250] Search - Duplicate 'Concierge' are displayed on Search page #41131

Closed

6 tasks

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 2, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-05-02 #41494

Closed

60 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix recent report is missing from the assignee list #41232

Fix recent report is missing from the assignee list #41232

bernhardoj commented Apr 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 29, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 29, 2024

mananjadhav commented Apr 29, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 29, 2024

mananjadhav commented Apr 29, 2024

rlinoz commented Apr 29, 2024

mananjadhav commented Apr 29, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 30, 2024

rlinoz commented Apr 30, 2024

rlinoz commented Apr 30, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 30, 2024

rlinoz Apr 30, 2024

bernhardoj Apr 30, 2024

rlinoz Apr 30, 2024

rlinoz left a comment

mananjadhav commented May 1, 2024

marcochavezf left a comment

OSBotify commented May 1, 2024

OSBotify commented May 7, 2024

	// For 1:1 chat, we don't want to include currentUser as participants
	// For 1:1 chat, we don't want to include currentUser as participants in order to not mark 1:1 chats as having multiple participants

Fix recent report is missing from the assignee list #41232

Fix recent report is missing from the assignee list #41232

Conversation

bernhardoj commented Apr 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 29, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 29, 2024

mananjadhav commented Apr 29, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 29, 2024

mananjadhav commented Apr 29, 2024

rlinoz commented Apr 29, 2024

mananjadhav commented Apr 29, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 30, 2024

rlinoz commented Apr 30, 2024

rlinoz commented Apr 30, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 30, 2024

rlinoz Apr 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bernhardoj Apr 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rlinoz Apr 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rlinoz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mananjadhav commented May 1, 2024

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

marcochavezf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented May 1, 2024

OSBotify commented May 7, 2024

bernhardoj commented Apr 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading