[HOLD for payment 2023-11-01] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-13] [$500] Web - The order of avatars on the header sometimes matches the avatars on chat view

[kbecciv]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Issue found when executing PR #25416

Action Performed:

Precondition: Logged into new dot.

1. Create a group chat.
2. Observe the order of avatars on the header and the order of avatars on the chat view.

Expected Result:

The order should match.

Actual Result:

The order sometimes matches or doesn't match.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android / native
• Android / Chrome
• iOS / native
• iOS / Safari
• MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• MacOS / Desktop

Version Number: 1.3.73.0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

Bug6210843_The_order_of_avatars_on_the_header_sometimes_matches_the_avatars_on_chat_view.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team
Slack conversation:

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01e20b778de4f7c770
• Upwork Job ID: 1706233303056359424
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-25
• Automatic offers:
• akinwale | Contributor | 26875267

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @miljakljajic (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[akinwale]

Proposal

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

In a group chat, the order of participants in the header is not sorted the same way as the avatars in the chat view.

What is the root cause of that problem?

In ReportUtils, the getDisplayNamesWithTooltips implementation which is used to get the list of names in the HeaderView does not apply any sorting to the display names returned. getIconsForParticipants which is the method used for obtaining the list of avatars in the chat view, however does apply a sort to the list of avatars returned.

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

Apply the same logic for sorting used in getIconsForParticipants to getDisplayNamesWithTooltips. Also (optionally) add a flag parameter, shouldSort to getDisplayNamesWithTooltips which indicates whether or not the returned list should be sorted. If the shouldSort parameter is not used, then the returned list of display names will always be sorted in every instance where the getDisplayNamesWithTooltips method is called.

function getDisplayNamesWithTooltips(personalDetailsList, isMultipleParticipantReport, shouldSort) {
    const displayNames = _.map(personalDetailsList, (user) => {
        ...
    });

    if (!shouldSort) {
        return displayNames;
    }
    
    const sortedDisplayNames = _.chain(displayNames)
        .sort((first, second) => {
            // First sort by displayName/login
            const displayNameLoginOrder = first.displayName.localeCompare(second.displayName);
            if (displayNameLoginOrder !== 0) {
                return displayNameLoginOrder;
            }

            // Then fallback on accountID as the final sorting criteria.
            return first.accountID > second.accountID;
        })
        .value();
    return sortedDisplayNames;
}

If we do add the shouldSort parameter, HeaderView also needs to be updated.

-const displayNamesWithTooltips = ReportUtils.getDisplayNamesWithTooltips(participantPersonalDetails, isMultipleParticipant);
+const displayNamesWithTooltips = ReportUtils.getDisplayNamesWithTooltips(participantPersonalDetails, isMultipleParticipant, true);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

None.

[mountiny]

cc @cead22 @mananjadhav @honnamkuan seems like this was found coming from your PR, potential regression

[akinwale]

@mountiny It looks like the names in the header were not being sorted prior, and based on the issue history at #23364, the selected proposal is fixing an existing sorting implementation, so it's safe to assume that it's probably not a regression since the names in the header were never a consideration in the first place.

[cead22]

Apply the same logic for sorting used in getIconsForParticipants to getDisplayNamesWithTooltips

👍 . I don't think we need the optional parameter, in fact, I imagine we don't want the optional parameter since that will allow us to sort things differently, right?

[mountiny]

Thanks for confirming, I have admitedly not gone through the linked issue, just coming off the QA linking it at the header.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01e20b778de4f7c770

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @miljakljajic is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

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

[akinwale]

Apply the same logic for sorting used in getIconsForParticipants to getDisplayNamesWithTooltips

👍 . I don't think we need the optional parameter, in fact, I imagine we don't want the optional parameter since that will allow us to sort things differently, right?

Well, I was assuming since getDisplayNamesWithTooltips is also used in the LHN, performance might take a hit having to sort for all open reports, especially for users with a lot of reports. I have not specifically measured this, however.

EDIT: I see each display name list is limited to a max of 10 participants in the LHN, so maybe it wouldn't necessarily be a significant hit.

[allroundexperts]

@akinwale's proposal makes sense. Let's go with that.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

📣 @allroundexperts Please request via NewDot manual requests for the Reviewer role ($500)

[melvin-bot]

📣 @akinwale 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[akinwale]

@stitesExpensify I've created a follow-up PR. I would like to get some more eyes on the isGroupChat method for additional insight, if possible. Thanks.

cc @allroundexperts

[melvin-bot]

@akinwale, @miljakljajic, @allroundexperts, @stitesExpensify Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[miljakljajic]

What are the next steps for this one?

[akinwale]

What are the next steps for this one?

Currently waiting for feedback on the second PR.

[miljakljajic]

@allroundexperts can you review when you have a chance?

[allroundexperts]

@miljakljajic ✅

[melvin-bot]

Based on my calculations, the pull request did not get merged within 3 working days of assignment. Please, check out my computations here:

• when @akinwale got assigned: 2023-09-26 02:48:24 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-10-23 18:18:19 UTC
• days elapsed: 19

On to the next one 🚀

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[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 1.3.90-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: sort header display names and avatars in a group chat view #28991

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-11-01. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

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

• @akinwale requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @allroundexperts does not require payment (Eligible for Manual Requests)

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[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:

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

[miljakljajic]

@akinwale offer sent!

[akinwale]

@akinwale offer sent!

Accepted. Thanks!

[miljakljajic]

Paid! Closing.

[tienifr]

As having reported the regression previously here, I'm grateful to be compensated for bug reporting.

[allroundexperts]

@miljakljajic I was assigned as a C+ here. Can you please write a payment summary for me as well?

[miljakljajic]

@allroundexperts I skipped you for payment based on this comment:

@allroundexperts does not require payment (Eligible for Manual Requests)

Is that a mistake?

[allroundexperts]

@miljakljajic In order to approve the manual request, the internal member must see the payment summary in the issue.

[miljakljajic]

Ah @allroundexperts I totally misunderstood that message. Thank you and sorry!

Payment Summary:

@allroundexperts eligible for $500 based on their work as the C+ reviewing the PR.

[allroundexperts]

No worries. This one had a regression so the amount should be 50% for me and @akinwale.