[HOLD for payment 2023-10-24] [$500] Email not found in new workspace after adding as member, splitting bill, deleting old workspace.

[m-natarajan]

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 new account > Settings > Create workspace > Members > Add members (copy email for step 4)
2. Go to Announcement > Plus sign > Split bill > Add numbers > Split bill
3. Go to Workspace > Three dots > Delete workspace
4. Go back to Settings > Create workspace > Members > Add members > Paste copied email into workspace

Expected Result:

Email should be found when searching for it in the newly created workspace.

Actual Result:

Email cannot be found when searching for it in the newly created workspace.

Workaround:

unknown

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: 1.3.73-9
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

Recorder_06102023_123639.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-10-06.at.2.31.20.AM.mov

Screen.Recording.2023-10-06.at.1.55.22.AM.mov

Screen.Recording.2023-10-06.at.1.52.45.AM.mov

Screen.Recording.2023-10-06.at.1.49.01.AM.mov

Screen.Recording.2023-10-06.at.1.43.45.AM.mov

Recording.11.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @tewodrosGirmaA
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1696584062077569

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01045d4102dd433123
• Upwork Job ID: 1710349407654047744
• Last Price Increase: 2023-10-06
• Automatic offers:
• hoangzinh | Reviewer | 27135873
• c3024 | Contributor | 27135874
• tewodrosGirmaA | Reporter | 27135875

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @peterdbarkerUK

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @peterdbarkerUK

[c3024]

Proposal

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

Cannot invite a member X to a workspace B if X was added to a workspace A, then split a bill with X and then the workspace A is deleted.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we create a split request this here

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Lines 1060 to 1065 in a6d2f3e

	} else {
	const existingChatReport = ReportUtils.getChatByParticipants([accountID]);
	isNewOneOnOneChatReport = !existingChatReport;
	shouldCreateOptimisticPersonalDetails = isNewOneOnOneChatReport;
	oneOnOneChatReport = existingChatReport || ReportUtils.buildOptimisticChatReport([accountID]);
	}

checks if there is one to one chat report and if does not exists it sets shouldCreateOptimisticPersonalDetails to true even though a personal detail exists and this here

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Line 1122 in 5dc3c25

isOptimisticPersonalDetail: true,

sets isOptimisticPersonalDetail to true and subsequently through buildOnyxDataForMoneyRequest, the personal detail is set with field isOptimisticPersonalDetail to true.
This here

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 1262 in 5dc3c25

personalDetails: _.filter(personalDetailsOptions, (personalDetailsOption) => !personalDetailsOption.isOptimisticPersonalDetail),

does not show this optimistic personal detail and also no option is created because it already exists in personal details.

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

We need to check if the accountID already exists in the personal details and if it does we should not change shouldCreateOptimisticPersonalDetails to true.
So we can subscribe to personal details in IOU and add this

const personalDetailExists = _.has(allPersonalDetails, accountID)

here

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Line 1051 in 5dc3c25

and change these

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Line 1059 in 5dc3c25

shouldCreateOptimisticPersonalDetails = !existingSplitChatReport;

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Line 1063 in 5dc3c25

shouldCreateOptimisticPersonalDetails = isNewOneOnOneChatReport;

to

shouldCreateOptimisticPersonalDetails = !existingSplitChatReport && !personalDetailExists;

shouldCreateOptimisticPersonalDetails = isNewOneOnOneChatReport && !personalDetailExists;

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We might consider changing the logic here

App/src/libs/actions/IOU.js

Line 1061 in 5dc3c25

const existingChatReport = ReportUtils.getChatByParticipants([accountID]);

to include the accountID of current user when we get report by participants
or
have a function to check if there is a chat with this participant instead of checking if a report has all participants like the existing getChatbyParticipants

Result

showInviteMember.mov

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01045d4102dd433123

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[hoangzinh]

Reviewing proposal. Btw @m-natarajan could you help to add "Bug" label to this issue in order to have a BZ member assigned to this issue? Thanks

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @peterdbarkerUK (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

[hoangzinh]

@c3024 Thanks for your proposal. It looks good to me. Your proposal pointed out a correct RCA and the solution makes sense. We should only create an optimisticPersonalDetails during split bill if it does not exist.

Thus, I think we go with @c3024's proposal here #29024 (comment)

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

📣 @hoangzinh 🎉 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]

📣 @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 📖

[melvin-bot]

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

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

Based on my calculations, the pull request did not get merged within 3 working days of assignment. Please, check out my computations here:

• when @c3024 got assigned: 2023-10-11 07:38:38 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-10-16 14:03:34 UTC
• days elapsed: 3

On to the next one 🚀

[hoangzinh]

I think it's more fair for Contributors if this issue is considered for the speed bonus because the 1st round approval is within a half day. @c3024 and I quickly made & tested the PR as soon as possible.

[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 1.3.85-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• prevent optimisticID creation for a user already existing in personal details #29279

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-24. 🎊

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

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

• @hoangzinh requires payment offer (Reviewer)
• @c3024 requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @tewodrosGirmaA requires payment offer (Reporter)

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:

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

[peterdbarkerUK]

Summarizing payouts for this issue:

Issue reporter: @tewodrosGirmaA $50

Contributor: @c3024 $750

Upwork Job

[peterdbarkerUK]

@hoangzinh please complete the above checklist and I'll process your payment too!

[hoangzinh]

BugZero Checklist:

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: feat: fix the logic for generating optimistic personal details #22401
• 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/22401/files#r1370510758
• 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. [HOLD for payment 2023-10-24] [$500] Email not found in new workspace after adding as member, splitting bill, deleting old workspace. #29024 (comment)

[hoangzinh]

Regression Test Proposal

1. Create a workspace X
2. Invite a user A to workspace X
3. Go to #announce room of workspace X
4. Split a bill in this room with the user A
5. Delete the workspace X
6. Create another workspace Y
7. Go to the Invite page of workspace Y
8. Verify that user A is shown in the options below the search input.

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[melvin-bot]

@hoangzinh, @peterdbarkerUK, @Gonals, @c3024 Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[peterdbarkerUK]

Thanks @hoangzinh - I noticed you skipped the PR Review Checklist discussion step. Could you help me understand if and when that step is required? (I've asked this internally too)

[hoangzinh]

Yeah, because I think it's not a straightforward bug. It's hard to catch kind of this bug from the beginning.

[peterdbarkerUK]

Thanks @hoangzinh - I'm new to BZ and still learning how to handle the judgment call elements of instructions. And, candidly, trying to identify steps we can remove as unnecessary.

On that note of me not being very good yet:

seems to me this is an edge case we don't need to test for in TestRail. I should have done this step earlier and saved you some bureaucracy. Would you agree?

[hoangzinh]

No worry @peterdbarkerUK.

seems to me this is an edge case we don't need to test for in TestRail

I feel it's not an edge case. In a workspace, we split the bill to some users, then we delete this workspace and create a new workspace, we would like to add previous users to this new workspace. I'm 50:50 on it.

what do you think? @c3024 @Gonals do you agree this issue is an edge case? Thanks

[c3024]

"Deleting workspace A" is not a required step.

I think this is not an edge case bug.

As long as we split bill with a user (whose personal details are already returned from backend) with whom we don't have a one-to-one chat already, we will face this bug. And this user option does not appear in any option list because this is turned into an optimistic detail.

While this might not be a frequent flow, this flow can happen sometimes and this bug is a bit more than an edge case bug in my opinion.

[peterdbarkerUK]

Yeah, I'd agree with that. In which case should the regression test be:

1. Create a workspace X
2. Invite a new user A to workspace X
3. Go to #announce room of workspace X
4. Split a bill in this room with the user A
5. Create another workspace Y
6. Go to the Invite page of workspace Y
7. Verify that user A is shown in the options below the search input.

[peterdbarkerUK]

TR update proposed, thanks everyone!

[hoangzinh]

@peterdbarkerUK let me know when the payment is processed for me in Upwork. Thanks

[peterdbarkerUK]

Ugh, I lost that in the regression test uncertainty. I'm sorry. Payment sent!

• @hoangzinh (reviewer) $750 inc urgency bonus

Job closed