[HOLD for payment 2024-07-17] [$250] Report fields - Row is not grayed out when added/edited offline

[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!

---

Version Number: 9.0.4.0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: no new feature
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): n/a
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 Workspace settings > Report fields (enable from More features)
3. Go offline.
4. Tap Add field.
5. Add any report field and save it.

Expected Result:

The row will be grayed out when added offline.

Actual Result:

The row is not grayed out when added offline. This also applies to List values editor for List report field.

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

Bug6532504_1720042394848.report_fi_ofline.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~018389cb0ae25e3928
• Upwork Job ID: 1808737930014144742
• Last Price Increase: 2024-07-04

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @zanyrenney

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @zanyrenney (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]

@techievivek 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 #vip-vsb

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

The row is not grayed out when added offline. This also applies to List values editor for List report field.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We don't add the pendingAction field when we get the list report fields here

App/src/pages/workspace/reportFields/WorkspaceReportFieldsPage.tsx

Line 67 in 83eb7e6

return Object.values(filteredPolicyFieldList).map((reportField) => ({

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

We should add pendingAction here when we get the list report field to apply the gray out style when this report field is added/edited offline.

App/src/pages/workspace/reportFields/WorkspaceReportFieldsPage.tsx

Line 67 in 83eb7e6

return Object.values(filteredPolicyFieldList).map((reportField) => ({

App/src/libs/actions/Policy/ReportFields.ts

Lines 162 to 164 in 83eb7e6

	pendingFields: {
	[fieldKey]: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,
	},

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[etCoderDysto]

Proposal

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

Row is not grayed out when added/edited offline

What is the root cause of that problem?

When creating a report field we are adding a pendingAction to pendingFileds of a policy with fieldKey here

App/src/libs/actions/Policy/ReportFields.ts

Lines 162 to 163 in 83eb7e6

	pendingFields: {
	[fieldKey]: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,

But when creating a reportFieldList here and pass it selection list we are not including pendingField added to the policy as a 'pendingAction' prop

App/src/pages/workspace/reportFields/WorkspaceReportFieldsPage.tsx

Lines 67 to 73 in 83eb7e6

	return Object.values(filteredPolicyFieldList).map((reportField) => ({
	value: reportField.name,
	fieldID: reportField.fieldID,
	keyForList: String(reportField.orderWeight),
	orderWeight: reportField.orderWeight,
	isSelected: selectedReportFields.find((selectedReportField) => selectedReportField.name === reportField.name) !== undefined,
	text: reportField.name,

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

• Use Object.entries instead of Object.values
• Then destructure the returned array to [reportKey, reportField
• Then add pendingAction: policy?.pendingFields[reportKey] ?? null below
  

  App/src/pages/workspace/reportFields/WorkspaceReportFieldsPage.tsx

  Lines 67 to 73 in 83eb7e6

  	return Object.values(filteredPolicyFieldList).map((reportField) => ({
  	value: reportField.name,
  	fieldID: reportField.fieldID,
  	keyForList: String(reportField.orderWeight),
  	orderWeight: reportField.orderWeight,
  	isSelected: selectedReportFields.find((selectedReportField) => selectedReportField.name === reportField.name) !== undefined,
  	text: reportField.name,

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Result:

Screen.Recording.2024-07-04.at.7.10.52.in.the.morning.mp4

[etCoderDysto]

Updated Proposal

• Added video result

[techievivek]

Adding a C+ so they can review the above proposals and help us fix this ASAP.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~018389cb0ae25e3928

[melvin-bot]

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

[mollfpr]

Both proposal has the correct RCA, but the @etCoderDysto proposal has more detail for the implementation.

I'll suggest we go with @etCoderDysto proposal.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed!

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @techievivek is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[nkdengineer]

@mollfpr I don't think we need more detail here, I also referred the way to get the pending action here in my proposal.

App/src/libs/actions/Policy/ReportFields.ts

Lines 162 to 164 in 83eb7e6

	pendingFields: {
	[fieldKey]: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,
	},

[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 9.0.5-13 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Feature: Implement the policy report field delete flow #44493

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-17. 🎊

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

• @mollfpr requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @etCoderDysto requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

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

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.6-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Feature: Implement the policy report field delete flow #44493

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-22. 🎊

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

• @mollfpr requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @etCoderDysto requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

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

[Christinadobrzyn]

Hi @mollfpr @mountiny @techievivek can you check and see if this deploy blocker relates to this PR? #45461

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[mollfpr]

cc @shubham1206agra #44798 (comment)

[zanyrenney]

bump @shubham1206agra can you review the comment above as this is being raised as a deploy blocker?

[shubham1206agra]

@zanyrenney Already addressed here #45461 (comment)

[zanyrenney]

Ah great, thank you!

[zanyrenney]

I'll move ahead with the payments in this case 🙇🏼

[zanyrenney]

have asked @etCoderDysto to apply to job for payout

[shubham1206agra]

Payments will be handled later at one place for this.

[zanyrenney]

Ah okay that's not what the payment summary says:

But happy to go with that then. I will close this one out!

[etCoderDysto]

$50 approved for @mollfpr

@zanyrenney Only mollfpr is paid. I am not paid yet.
And here is the payment summary

$50 each to @mollfpr and @etCoderDysto, once payment is made, we close this out.
cc @zanyrenney

[zanyrenney]

Cool, payment summary:
@mollfpr requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests - paid via ND
@etCoderDysto requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ) - paid $50 via UPwork.