[HOLD for payment 2024-07-10] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-02] [$250] Search - RHP loads infinitely when deleting expense from report details page

[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: 9.0.1-0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: n
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: exp around vhttps://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/4662005
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 DM.
3. Submit an expense to the user.
4. Go to Search.
5. Click on the expense submitted in Step 3.
6. Click on the report header.
7. Click Delete expense.
8. Delete the expense.

Expected Result:

RHP will close because the transaction is deleted.

Actual Result:

RHP loads infinitely.

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

Bug6521562_1719066498914.20240622_202515.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~012d8ed6a1d54a3505
• Upwork Job ID: 1805219999552454866
• Last Price Increase: 2024-06-24
• Automatic offers:
• tsa321 | Contributor | 102864301
• c3024 | Contributor | 102869949

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @jliexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @jliexpensify (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.

[melvin-bot]

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

[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]

@jasperhuangg 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 that this bug might be related to #wave-collect - Release 1

[tsa321]

Proposal

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

Search - RHP loads infinitely when deleting expense from RHP

What is the root cause of that problem?

New feature: delete from report details. The logic when user deletes expense report from report details will go back to previous screen. I think the correct navigation is to goback to transaction search page.

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

We could make a library function to get previous screen name, something like:

const state = navigationRef.getState();
const previousScreenName = state.routes.at(-1)?.state?.routes?.at(-2)?.name;
// for further details we must check on the routes length; 
// this is used for illustration

In ReportDetailsPage, we can use this library function as getPreviosScreenName.

In here:

App/src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

Lines 633 to 637 in 0176052

	onModalHide={() => {
	if (!navigateBackToAfterDelete.current) {
	return;
	}
	Navigation.goBack(navigateBackToAfterDelete.current);

Modify the code into:

if (!navigateBackToAfterDelete.current) {
    return;
}

+if (previousScreenName === SCREENS.RIGHT_MODAL.SEARCH_REPORT) {
+    navigateBackToAfterDelete.current = undefined;
+    Navigation.dismissModal();
+    return;
+}
Navigation.goBack(navigateBackToAfterDelete.current);

So we check on previous screen, if it is SCREENS.RIGHT_MODAL.SEARCH_REPORT, we dismiss the modal.

---

We could use same method in report opened in RHP -> three dots menu -> delete expense.

[mountiny]

@tsa321 do you have a link to the PR that caused this issue?

[tsa321]

@mountiny I believe It is new feature. The delete expense button is displayed in report details.
Here is from dev/staging:

Here is from production

I have worked on #43970 and I have tried to revert it, but the problem persists—the loading skeleton view is displayed indefinitely.

I believe the expected behavior is to return to the transaction search page instead of the search report in the RHP, since the report is deleted.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~012d8ed6a1d54a3505

[melvin-bot]

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

[mountiny]

Yeah I think the RHP should close and we should remove the expense from the search too cc @luacmartins

[WojtekBoman]

@tsa321 I checked your proposal and you correctly found a root cause of this issue :)

However, I think that this solution could be a bit more simpler. For example, to determine if we are in the Search tab we can check the topmost central pane route. Thanks to that we have more readable information which module of the app is currently opened:

const topmostCentralPaneRoute = getTopmostCentralPaneRoute(navigationRef.getRootState() as State<RootStackParamList>);

if (!navigateBackToAfterDelete.current) {
    return;
}
+if (topmostCentralPaneRoute?.name === SCREENS.SEARCH.CENTRAL_PANE) {
+    navigateBackToAfterDelete.current = undefined;
+    Navigation.dismissModal();
+    return;
+}
Navigation.goBack(navigateBackToAfterDelete.current);

Furthermore, I noticed that the same logic is used in components: MoneyRequestHeader and MoneyReportHeader. Currently it works this way:

Screen.Recording.2024-06-24.at.14.28.55.mov

After deleting an expense, we're redirected to the ReportScreen, to me it should also close RHP. If so, we can add this logic to header components as well, I think that we can create a separate function to handle that

[melvin-bot]

📣 @c3024 🎉 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 📖

[luacmartins]

Confirmed this fixed the bug in staging.

[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 9.0.1-19 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Fix back navigation after delete expense request in search transcation pane RHP #44372

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-02. 🎊

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

• @c3024 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @tsa321 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:

• [@c3024] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@c3024] 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:
• [@c3024] 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:
• [@c3024] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@c3024] 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.
• [@jliexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[jliexpensify]

Hi @c3024 - any checklist needed?

[c3024]

@jliexpensify

This is a new feature and the bug was caught in Staging itself so there is no regression test needed as well. I think there is no need for a checklist here.

[luacmartins]

Correct, we'll add test steps as part of the project wrap up.

[jliexpensify]

Payment Summary:

• Contributor: @tsa321 $250
• C+: @c3024 $250

Upwork job

[jliexpensify]

Paid and job closed!

[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 9.0.3-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Fix back navigation after delete expense request in search transcation pane RHP #44372

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-10. 🎊

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

• @c3024 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @tsa321 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:

• [@c3024] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@c3024] 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:
• [@c3024] 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:
• [@c3024] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@c3024] 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.
• [@jliexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: