[HOLD for payment 2023-06-28] [$1000] New member as Hidden shows while create new room in offline mode

[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 workspace
2. go to offline
3. click on + icon and choose new room option
4. fill details and click on new room button
5. go to room and click on header
6. go to Members

Expected Result:

should show only one member

Actual Result:

shows two member (one with Hidden name)

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: 1.3.29-0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: n
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

Screen.Recording.2023-06-16.at.3.20.05.PM.mov

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @gadhiyamanan
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1686909294977579

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01b0bb944a66007f1c
• Upwork Job ID: 1670734312369778688
• Last Price Increase: 2023-06-19

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @conorpendergrast (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

[OSBotify]

👋 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.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @bondydaa (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[ginsuma]

Proposal

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

New member as Hidden shows while create new room in offline mode

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are using this line to get participants here.

const participants = _.unique([currentUserAccountID, ..._.pluck(policy.employeeList, 'accountID')]);`

And this is what we get after sending request for CreateWorkspace

"policy": {
  "employeeList": [{"email": "[email protected]", "forwardsTo": "", "role": "admin", "submitsTo": "[email protected]"}]
}

As you can see there is no accountID filed , so it will return:

[currentUserAccountID, undefined]

It will show 'Hidden' for undefined with this line here

const userPersonalDetail = lodashGet(personalDetails, accountID, {displayName: personalDetails.displayName || 'Hidden', avatar: ''});

The reason why it doesn't happen when we are in online mode is participants data will be updated when we send API OpenReport.

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

BE return accountID filed
or removing undefined from participants here

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @ginsuma! 📣
Hey, it seems we don’t have your contributor details yet! You'll only have to do this once, and this is how we'll hire you on Upwork.
Please follow these steps:

1. Get the email address used to login to your Expensify account. If you don't already have an Expensify account, create one here. If you have multiple accounts (e.g. one for testing), please use your main account email.
2. Get the link to your Upwork profile. It's necessary because we only pay via Upwork. You can access it by logging in, and then clicking on your name. It'll look like this. If you don't already have an account, sign up for one here.
3. Copy the format below and paste it in a comment on this issue. Replace the placeholder text with your actual details.
   
   Format:

Contributor details
Your Expensify account email: <REPLACE EMAIL HERE>
Upwork Profile Link: <REPLACE LINK HERE>

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01b0bb944a66007f1c

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[conorpendergrast]

Great: not reproducible on Production, just on Staging (making this a deploy blocker)

[fedirjh]

@conorpendergrast @bondydaa This probably should be fixed on backend, the returned employeeList of the created policy doesn’t not include accountID it just include email . this proposal from @ginsuma explained it very well.

[conorpendergrast]

Ok, I wonder if this is going to be resolved via #19007

@bondydaa @Beamanator what do you think?

[bondydaa]

Hmm #19007 is more of a tracking issue, quickly looking I don't see any open PRs specifically tied to something addressing the bug reported here but I also don't know much about that project/refactor so @Beamanator @puneetlath @pecanoro can you confirm if there is already something WIP or not?

[bondydaa]

I think this issue though has 2 different pieces to it.

Since part of it is dealing with "offline" updates it's not solely a backend/api thing.

Looks like the line linked in the proposal

App/src/libs/actions/Report.js

Line 1158 in b997868

const participants = _.unique([currentUserAccountID, ..._.pluck(policy.employeeList, 'accountID')]);

was changed last week 92394a8

I think it's in part b/c we are transitioning between the PERSONAL_DETAILS and PERSONAL_DETAILS_LIST.

so maybe we need to support both email and accountID for now in the app until the back end is updated?

[conorpendergrast]

Thanks! Looking at this issue and the PR, it seems like we have:

• bug reporter @gadhiyamanan
• Fixed by: @fedirjh
• C+ PR review: @aimane-chnaif

I'll get people hired and paid on the usual timeline. Let me know if any of that is wrong, thanks!

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[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:

• [@fedirjh] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@fedirjh] 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:
• [@fedirjh] 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:
• [@fedirjh] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@fedirjh] 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.
• [@conorpendergrast] 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 1.3.30-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [Fix] New Room participants list is empty #21072

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-06-29. 🎊

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:

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

[conorpendergrast]

Going to hire these people #20967 (comment) (using this link)

[conorpendergrast]

Looks like the urgency bonus applies here too, so I'll factor that in as well

[conorpendergrast]

Offers sent 👍

[conorpendergrast]

Paid:
bug reporter @gadhiyamanan
Fixed by: @fedirjh

Waiting for contract to be accepted:
C+ PR review: @aimane-chnaif

[conorpendergrast]

Waiting for the contract to be accepted to pay @aimane-chnaif (with urgency bonus), and for the C+ checklist

[conorpendergrast]

@aimane-chnaif FYI: I'm waiting to pay you! Please accept this contract and complete the C+ checklist

[aimane-chnaif]

As this is one of issues came from secure logins refactor, I don't think regression test is needed.
And we're still discussing the expected behavior of members list in policy room - #20761 (comment), https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/16858

[conorpendergrast]

Alright, sounds good. Let's leave that discussion to that issue.

Paid now, and I think we are safe to close this out now. Reopen or comment if you disagree!

[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.