[HOLD for payment 2024-03-14] [HOLD for payment 2024-03-13] [$500] Distance - Request details page loads infinitely when the request is created offline

[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!

---

Version Number: 1.4.47-0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: n
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go offline.
3. Go to workspace chat.
4. Create a distance request.
5. Go to the distance request details page.

Expected Result:

User will be able to access request details page even though the request is created offline.

Actual Result:

The request details page loads infinitely when the request is created offline.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6402548_1709630058066.20240305_120325.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01dfe56b23d3d01ac3
• Upwork Job ID: 1765255088135561216
• Last Price Increase: 2024-03-06

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @joekaufmanexpensify

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @johnmlee101 (Engineering), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[kbecciv]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave5-free-submitters
CC @dylanexpensify

[paultsimura]

It's being fixed in #37232

[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]

⚠️ 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.

[mvtglobally]

seems to be resolved on build v1.4.47-7

video.mov

[roryabraham]

actually, going to reopen this to handle C+ review payment on #37804

[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 1.4.47-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Point to the onyx hotfix branch #37804

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-03-13. 🎊

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

• @paultsimura requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

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

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.48-0 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Point to the onyx hotfix branch #37804

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-03-14. 🎊

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

• @paultsimura requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

• [@paultsimura] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Re: Use initialValue when cached value is undefined react-native-onyx#480
• [@paultsimura] 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: https://github.com/Expensify/react-native-onyx/pull/480/files#r1519881887
• [@paultsimura] 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
• [@paultsimura] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@paultsimura] 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.
• [@joekaufmanexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: N/A

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@paultsimura could you please handle your portion of the BZ checklist so we can prep to issue payment?

[paultsimura]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Re: Use initialValue when cached value is undefined react-native-onyx#480
• 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: https://github.com/Expensify/react-native-onyx/pull/480/files#r1519881887
• 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
• Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug: Yes
• 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

1. Go offline.
2. Go to a workspace chat.
3. Create a new distance request.
4. Open the distance request details page (i.e. transaction thread).
5. Verify the request details page loads successfully even though the request was created offline.

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[joekaufmanexpensify]

TY! No additional regression test is needed here. This is already captured in the existing test: Request Money - Distance Expense - Create distance Expense (Offline)

[joekaufmanexpensify]

All set to issue payment. We only need to pay @paultsimura $500 for C+ review via upwork.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@paultsimura offer sent for $500!

[paultsimura]

Thanks, accepted😌

[joekaufmanexpensify]

TY!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

$500 sent and contract ended

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Upwork job closed.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Good to go here. Thanks everyone!