[HOLD for payment 2024-05-02] [$250] Group chat - Removed member can be clicked on when removed offline

[m-natarajan]

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: 1.4.63-0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: No newfeature
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: applause internal team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to FAB > Start chat.
3. Create a group chat.
4. Click on the header > Members.
5. Go offline.
6. Remove a member.
7. Click on the removed member.

Expected Result:

Removed member should not be accessible when removed offline.

Actual Result:

Removed member can be clicked on when removed 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

Bug6453387_1713430802207.20240418_165708.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01d0778275dfed7122
• Upwork Job ID: 1782605006753902592
• Last Price Increase: 2024-04-23
• Automatic offers:
• jjcoffee | Reviewer | 0
• ZhenjaHorbach | Contributor | 0

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @kevinksullivan

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @kevinksullivan (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.

[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.

[m-natarajan]

@kevinksullivan 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.

[m-natarajan]

We think this bug might be related to #vip-vsb

[marcaaron]

Not a blocker IMO. I'll add this to the polish pile for Group Chats. @grgia let me know if you'd like me to take this off your hands.

[ZhenjaHorbach]

Proposal

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

Group chat - Removed member can be clicked on when removed offline

What is the root cause of that problem?

The main problem with issue is that we don't pass param for disabling elements

App/src/pages/ReportParticipantsPage.tsx

Lines 96 to 113 in e662e00

	result.push({
	keyForList: `${accountID}`,
	accountID,
	isSelected,
	isDisabledCheckbox: accountID === currentUserAccountID,
	text: formatPhoneNumber(PersonalDetailsUtils.getDisplayNameOrDefault(details)),
	alternateText: formatPhoneNumber(details?.login ?? ''),
	rightElement: roleBadge,
	pendingAction: pendingChatMember?.pendingAction,
	icons: [
	{
	source: UserUtils.getAvatar(details?.avatar, accountID),
	name: formatPhoneNumber(details?.login ?? ''),
	type: CONST.ICON_TYPE_AVATAR,
	id: accountID,
	},
	],
	});

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

To fix this issue we can pass isDisabled param

const isDisabled = pendingChatMember?.pendingAction === CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE;

We use the same condition in other places

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[grgia]

@marcaaron thanks for offering, all yours!

[melvin-bot]

@kevinksullivan, @marcaaron Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[marcaaron]

@ZhenjaHorbach I think the proposed solution makes sense so happy to roll with that. I can't imagine a situation where we'd want to give the user the ability to "cancel" the offline action. Or at least - it doesn't feel like a priority right now.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01d0778275dfed7122

[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 1.4.65-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix bug with Removed member can be clicked #40758

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-05-02. 🎊

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

• @jjcoffee requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @ZhenjaHorbach requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[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:

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

[kevinksullivan]

all set on payments. @jjcoffee please complete the steps above. Thanks!

[jjcoffee]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Update the Group Chat creation flow UI and Details page #39639
• 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/App/pull/39639/files#r1590702410
• 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 to FAB > Start chat
2. Create a group chat
3. Click on the chat header > Members
4. Go offline
5. Remove a member
6. Verify that removed member is not clickable

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[marcaaron]

That sounds great to me @jjcoffee

[marcaaron]

Looks like we maybe just need to create the regression test here?

[melvin-bot]

@kevinksullivan, @jjcoffee, @marcaaron, @ZhenjaHorbach Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[marcaaron]

Gonna create the issue now and close this one so it stops going overdue.