[HOLD for payment 2023-07-17] [$1000] Capitalization in email search causing duplicate email in member invite preview

[kavimuru]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Action Performed:

1. Create a new workspace in settings and navigate to the member section to invite new members.
2. Search for a member by capitalizing the first letter of their email and marking it.
3. Search for the same email with all lowercase letters and notice that it appears as a duplicate. Mark it as well.
4. Add the marked emails to the members and notice that only the email with all lowercase letters is invited, while the capitalized email is not invited, causing confusion for users

Expected Result:

When searching for an email, capitalization should not affect the search results, and duplicate emails should not appear in the member invite preview.

Actual Result:

When searching for an email by capitalizing the first letter and marking it, and then searching for the same email with all lowercase letters, the email appears as a duplicate in the member invite preview. Only the email with all lowercase letters is invited, causing confusion for users

Workaround:

Can the user still use Expensify without this being fixed? Have you informed them of the workaround?

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: 1.3.32-5
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
screen-capture (37).webm

Recording.5165.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @tewodrosGirmaA
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1687338486243019

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017ccc4dfa896d2e90
• Upwork Job ID: 1673472018851819520
• Last Price Increase: 2023-06-26

[eh2077]

Proposal

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

Capitalization in email search causing duplicate email in member invite preview.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The root cause of this issue is that when the search value is a legal email to invite

1. We don't convert it to lowercase for userToInvite.login, see the snippet to construct userToInvite, and
2. We do case sensitive comparing when determining hasUnselectedUserToInvite, see snippet

So, we're able to search and select multiple emails, like, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] , which are same because email is case insensitive.

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

According to the RCA above and the fact that email is case insensitive, I think we can fix this issue from the snippet to construct userToInvite.

To achieve it, we can add a variable userLoginToInvite which is lowercase of searchValue

const userLoginToInvite = searchValue.toLowerCase();

after this line

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 778 in 820fa93

const optimisticAccountID = UserUtils.generateAccountID();

and replace all usages of searchValue to userLoginToInvite within the snippet to construct userToInvite. The key replacement is this line

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 791 in 820fa93

userToInvite.login = searchValue;

to avoid searching and selecting duplicates. While replacing all usages within the snippet will be helpful to avoid confusion from UX. For example, if we start searching [email protected], then there'll be an optional email [email protected] with capital letter to invite. But after invited, the backend will convert the email to lowercase [email protected] from the Workspace members list page.

Click to see demo video

Screen.Recording.2023-06-25.at.7.41.12.PM.mov

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

As discussed, we can change searchInputValue to lower at [beginning](

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 619 in 820fa93

const searchValue = parsedPhoneNumber.possible ? parsedPhoneNumber.number.e164 : searchInputValue;

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @kevinksullivan (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

[kevinksullivan]

reproduced

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017ccc4dfa896d2e90

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[sobitneupane]

@eh2077 Thanks for your proposal.

How about converting searchInputValue to lower case at the beginning of getOptions() function (if we decide to make all searches case insensitive)? Why did you propose to convert in down the function? Is there any unwanted behavior if we do it in the beginning?

[eh2077]

@sobitneupane Thanks for reviewing proposal!

How about converting searchInputValue to lower case at the beginning of getOptions() function (if we decide to make all searches case insensitive)?

That's a great point. I think we can convert searchInputValue to lower case at the beginning of getOptions() function.
I checked the usages of searchValue in the getOptions() function and confirmed that lower case of searchValue won’t break following usages in the function

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 731 in 820fa93

if (searchValue && !isSearchStringMatch(searchValue, searchText, participantNames, isChatRoom)) {

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 752 in 820fa93

if (searchValue && !isSearchStringMatch(searchValue, searchText, participantNames, isChatRoom)) {

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 760 in 820fa93

if (searchValue && !isSearchStringMatch(searchValue, currentUserOption.searchText)) {

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 820 in 820fa93

if (option.login.toLowerCase() !== searchValue.toLowerCase()) {

In method isSearchStringMatch, we also do case insensitive matching.

Why did you propose to convert in down the function? Is there any unwanted behavior if we do it in the beginning?

I think I overlooked these lines

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Lines 820 to 825 in 820fa93

	if (option.login.toLowerCase() !== searchValue.toLowerCase()) {
	return 1;
	}
	// When option.login is an exact match with the search value, returning 0 puts it at the top of the option list
	return 0;

I thought that case matters when ordering at the first glance of the condition and the comments. But, actually, it'll be safe to convert searchInputValue to lower case at the beginning of getOptions() function.

[eh2077]

Proposal

Updated to convert searchInputValue to lower case at the beginning of getOptions() function.

cc @sobitneupane

[sobitneupane]

Proposal from @eh2077 looks good to me. Since we are doing case insensitive matching, I don't think converting the searchInputValue to lowercase will have any unwanted impact.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

📣 @sobitneupane 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account 🎉

Reviewer - [$1000] Capitalization in email search causing duplicate email in member invite preview

[melvin-bot]

📣 @eh2077 You have been assigned to this job!
Please apply to this job in Upwork here and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Once you apply to this job, your Upwork ID will be stored and you will be automatically hired for future jobs!
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[melvin-bot]

📣 @tewodrosGirmaA You have been assigned to this job!
Please apply to this job in Upwork here and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Once you apply to this job, your Upwork ID will be stored and you will be automatically hired for future jobs!
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[eh2077]

There's a deploy blocker #22123 blocks the testing of this PR. I'm going to revert that issue PR or apply the on-going fix to continue test PR for this issue.

cc @sobitneupane

[kevinksullivan]

This is awaiting payment after regression period ends, right? It's no longer in review?

[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 1.3.38-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix: Capitalization in email search causing duplicate email in member invite preview #22168

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-07-17. 🎊

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

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:

• [@sobitneupane] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@sobitneupane] 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:
• [@sobitneupane] 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:
• [@sobitneupane] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@sobitneupane] 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]

Hi @sobitneupane please complete the steps above so I can pay this out on time!

[eh2077]

Friendly bump @kevinksullivan This is ready for payment

[sobitneupane]

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:

• [@sobitneupane] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:

I could not locate the exact PR. This could have been created by the change in backend as well.

• [@sobitneupane] 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:

https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1690209472452549

• [@sobitneupane] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.

Yes.

• [@sobitneupane] 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.

#21599 (comment)

[sobitneupane]

Regression Test Proposal

1. Go to Settings => Workspaces => Select a Workspace => Members => Invite new members
2. Search email [email protected] and select it
3. Search email [email protected]
4. Verify that email [email protected] remain selected and there's not new email option like [email protected]

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[kevinksullivan]

@eh2077 @sobitneupane @tewodrosGirmaA offers sent. Can you let me know here when you've accepted?

[eh2077]

@kevinksullivan Accepted offer, thanks!

[sobitneupane]

Payment Requested on newDot.

[kevinksullivan]

Ah sorry @sobitneupane . I'll withdraw the offer on upwork.

[eh2077]

Bump @kevinksullivan

[JmillsExpensify]

@kevinksullivan Can you please summarize the appropriate individual payments for all parties involved in this issue? This is holding up @sobitneupane's NewDot payments. More information on this compliance process in Slack.

[kevinksullivan]

Payout summary:

• Issue reporter: @tewodrosGirmaA $250
• Contributor: @eh2077 $1,500 (merge bonus)
• Contributor+ : @sobitneupane $1,500 (merge bonus)

[JmillsExpensify]

Reviewed details for @sobitneupane. This is accurate based on summary from Business Reviewer and approved for payment in NewDot.