[HOLD for payment 2024-08-05] [$250] Task – Assignee appears in LHN only after go back online if change it offline

[izarutskaya]

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: v9.0.6-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/4706414
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): applausetester+jp_e_category_1@applause.expensifail.com
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Issue reported by: Applause-Internal team

Action Performed:

1. Go to https://staging.new.expensify.com/
2. Log in
3. Open any chat
4. Create a task and assign to any user
5. Open task details and go offline
6. Assign task to another user
7. Observe task details in LHN
8. Go back online

Expected Result:

Assignee appears in LHN if change it offline

Actual Result:

Assignee appears in LHN only after go back online if change it 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

Bug6537976_1720622092420.LHN_assignee_offline.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01e2d6ef7ce1dc54d0
• Upwork Job ID: 1811555469876506041
• Last Price Increase: 2024-07-12
• Automatic offers:
• shubham1206agra | Reviewer | 103214635
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 103214638

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @shubham1206agra

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @mallenexpensify (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.

[izarutskaya]

We think this issue might be related to the #vip-vsb.

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

Assignee appears in LHN only after go back online if change it offline

What is the root cause of that problem?

The format of html of task edited action doesn't match with the userMention regex /<mention-user accountID="(\d+)" *\/>/gi when we convert HTML to text so before the edit task API is complete, the assignee doesn't display in LHN

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 4912 to 4915 in 7bed113

	html: `assigned to <mention-user accountID=${assigneeAccountID}></mention-user>`,
	},
	],
	person: [

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

Update the HTML here in the same format as the data that is returned from BE

html: `assigned to <mention-user accountID="${assigneeAccountID}"/>`,

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 4912 to 4915 in 7bed113

	html: `assigned to <mention-user accountID=${assigneeAccountID}></mention-user>`,
	},
	],
	person: [

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01e2d6ef7ce1dc54d0

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @shubham1206agra (External)

[mallenexpensify]

Torn here. With the new assignee being greyed out, I wouldn't expect it to be accurate elsewhere. That said... there's no details in LHN, I would expect the old assignee to show. What do you think @shubham1206agra ?

[shubham1206agra]

Torn here. With the new assignee being greyed out, I wouldn't expect it to be accurate elsewhere. That said... there's no details in LHN, I would expect the old assignee to show. What do you think @shubham1206agra ?

@mallenexpensify We should show the new assignee instead here. Since optimistic action assumes the state the action would be successful. And in this case successful action would be changed assignee.

[mallenexpensify]

Thanks @shubham1206agra , I'll take your word for it and, when a proposal is recommended, the internal engineer will chime in too. Can you review the proposal above? Thx

[melvin-bot]

@mallenexpensify, @shubham1206agra Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[melvin-bot]

@mallenexpensify, @shubham1206agra Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[melvin-bot]

@mallenexpensify, @shubham1206agra 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[mallenexpensify]

@shubham1206agra can you review the proposal from @nkdengineer above plz?

[shubham1206agra]

@nkdengineer's proposal looks good.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

📣 @shubham1206agra 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

📣 @nkdengineer 🎉 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 📖

[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 9.0.13-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: in offline mode Assignee does not appear in LHN #45984

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-05. 🎊

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

• @shubham1206agra requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @nkdengineer 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:

• [@shubham1206agra] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@shubham1206agra] 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:
• [@shubham1206agra] 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:
• [@shubham1206agra] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@shubham1206agra] 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.
• [@mallenexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[mallenexpensify]

Contributor: @nkdengineer paid $250 via Upwork
Contributor+: @shubham1206agra paid $250 via Upwork

@shubham1206agra , plz complete the BZ checklist above.

[shubham1206agra]

@mallenexpensify I also require payment through Upwork.

[shubham1206agra]

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:

• [@shubham1206agra] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: feat: Build optimistic Edit Task actions #36768
• [@shubham1206agra] 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/36768/files#r1706285615
• [@shubham1206agra] 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: Not Required
• [@shubham1206agra] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. No since the bug was basic and will be caught again in future by basic task tests.
• [@shubham1206agra] 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.
• [@mallenexpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[mallenexpensify]

Thanks @shubham1206agra , got ya paid, updated confirmation post ablve.

@shubham1206agra any reason we wouldn't want a test case for this?

[shubham1206agra]

any reason we wouldn't want a test case for this?

This was a basic bug which should be caught again in QA (if it happens) whenever user changes the assignee.