[HOLD for payment 2023-10-02] [$500] Web/Desktop - Request skeleton is shown grayed out instead the IOU details.

[izarutskaya]

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. Navigate to a conversation with a request money.
2. Open the IOU details
3. Disable the internet connection on the device
4. Click Delete the request

Expected Result:

Verify the request has been deleted and the IOU preview in conversation has been updated (the message should be still grayed out)

Actual Result:

Request skeleton is shown grayed out instead the IOU details.

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: v1.3.65-2

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

Bug6190968_offline_delete.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: Applause-Internal Team

Slack conversation: @

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01bdce495f39748b20
• Upwork Job ID: 1700202090575839232
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-08
• Automatic offers:
• 0xmiroslav | Reviewer | 26737448
• ginsuma | Contributor | 26737449

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @maddylewis (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

[ginsuma]

Proposal

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

Request skeleton is shown grayed out instead the IOU details.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we delete a money request, its transaction becomes empty, and then MoneyRequestSkeletonView shows.

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestPreview.js

Lines 240 to 242 in db1a306

	{_.isEmpty(props.transaction) ? (
	<MoneyRequestSkeletonView />
	) : (

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

We should add pendingAction={props.action.pendingAction} to OfflineWithFeedback here, and change the condition above to _.isEmpty(props.transaction) && !props.action.pendingAction.

The result is as below:

The amount becomes "$0.00", and the receipt image is lost because they need transaction data. I don't know if this is intentional.
If not, we can add previousTransaction to the optimistic data like we add previousMessage when deleting a report action.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01bdce495f39748b20

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @0xmiroslav (External)

[tienifr]

Proposal

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

Request skeleton is shown grayed out instead the IOU details.

What is the root cause of that problem?

In here, we're showing skeleton view if the transaction is empty (when it was not loaded yet). The problem is it can be empty if it's deleted in offline mode as well.

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

We should only show the skeleton if the pendingAction is not delete as well. This line can be updated to

{(_.isEmpty(props.transaction) && props.action.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE) ? (

We can optionally not show skeleton if there's any pendingAction instead, but there might be future cases where the transaction was not loaded yet but we can still edit the report action, so I prefer to limit it to pendingAction is not DELETE

Adding pendingAction to OfflineWithFeedback here is not necessary and will cause regressions (in offline mode the money request with pendingAction will be applied opacity twice), because we already apply the opacity for pendingAction in this outer OfflineWithFeedback.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[maddylewis]

@0xmiroslav - bump on proposal review - thx!

[0xmiros]

I think we can go with @ginsuma's proposal as they identified the correct cause and working solution.
@tienifr's proposal is similar but just added regression fix. Given that they can be easily identified in PR review, I am fine to go with first proposal.
🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @cead22, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[tienifr]

@tienifr's proposal is similar but just added regression fix. Given that they can be easily identified in PR review, I am fine to go with first proposal.

@0xmiroslav I believe for issues with straight-forward solutions, a regression-free proposal should be preferred (see here) since we want to avoid regressions as much as possible. Better be safe than sorry.

For this issue I think the effort to make it regression-free is even more than to identify the straight-forward fix.

cc @cead22

[0xmiros]

@tienifr it's case-by-case. You will notice that in some issues, first proposal is picked up but in some issues, 2nd proposal is picked up. You just referenced link of 2nd case. I have so many cases where 1st proposal is chosen.
@cead22 will give the final call anyway

[ginsuma]

For me, the proposal shouldn't bring any regressions in its solution. I needed to test it more. I agree with @tienifr. Thanks all!

[0xmiros]

Internal discussion between C+s

[tienifr]

For me, the proposal shouldn't bring any regressions in its solution. I needed to test it more. I agree with @tienifr. Thanks all!

@ginsuma we can split bounty if you agree! Although there's regression, yours are the first to reach to the root cause, so both of us bring value here 🚀

[ginsuma]

@ginsuma we can split bounty if you agree! Although there's regression, yours are the first to reach to the root cause, so both of us bring value here 🚀

Nah, you don't need my agreement. You deserve it 😅

[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 @tienifr got assigned: 2023-09-18 18:17:46 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-09-22 12:17:26 UTC
• days elapsed: 3

On to the next one 🚀

[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 1.3.73-1 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix: Money request skeleton is shown when delete IOU in offline mode #27753

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-02. 🎊

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:

• @ginsuma requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @0xmiroslav requires payment offer (Reviewer)
• @tienifr requires payment

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:

• [@0xmiroslav] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@0xmiroslav] 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:
• [@0xmiroslav] 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:
• [@0xmiroslav] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@0xmiroslav] 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.
• [@maddylewis] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[maddylewis]

Payments (i believe this is eligible for urgency bonus)

• Reporting bonus: N/A
• Contributor: @tienifr ($375 via Upwork)
• Contributor: @ginsuma ($375 via Upwork)
• C+: @0xmiroslav ($1000 via Upwork)

[maddylewis]

@0xmiroslav - can you review this checklist when you have a chance? thanks! #26939 (comment)

[maddylewis]

kk paid both contributors!

@0xmiroslav im kind of confused about what's going on with your payment but lmk if you need me to do anything with the offer that was sent.

also bump on reviewing this checklist - ty! #26939 (comment)

[0xmiros]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: feat(26270): Add Skeleton UI for Money Requests #26613
• 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/26613/files#r1350228795
• 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. QA team found this so no more regression test
• 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. N/A

[maddylewis]

i will wrap this one up today

[maddylewis]

okay @0xmiroslav i sent your Upwork profile an offer for this one. once it's accepted, I'll pay it out + the bonus and close this out.

[maddylewis]

paid!