@mkhutornyi Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

@mkhutornyi This maybe a regression. In my investigation, this only happens because of the newMessageTimeReference is not lesser than the reportAction.created. In archived chats case, newMessageTimeReference contains report.lastReadTime. Now both reportAction.created and report.lastReadTime are being populated from the backend. This message here explains there is some recent backend changes which affect the read/unread status of archived reports.

Based on this message we went on to create the PR because the backend changes might take some time.

For unable to mark as unread, I was only able to reproduce it on some archived read chats. This only happens for chats which have some sort of transactions. When we click on Mark as unread the below code is executed:

 const originalReportID = ReportUtils.getOriginalReportID(reportID, reportAction) ?? '-1';
 Report.markCommentAsUnread(originalReportID, reportAction?.created);

So this helper function getOriginalReportID does three things:

1. If isThreadFirstChat is true, it will return the parentReportID
2. Else, if transactionThreadReportID is present it will return it
3. Otherwise, the passed reportID will be returned

In the case of where we are unable to mark as unread, we get the transactionThreadReportID and use that to mark the chat as unread. Now, there are two things:

• We have reportID associated with the Option item in the LHN, say 123
• We get transactionThreadReportID as originalID from getOriginalReportID function, say 456
• We use the above ID, '456' to mark the chat as unread, the API succeeds but we still don't see any updates in the LHN

We don't see any update in the LHN because the reportID associated is different than the one we used to mark as unread. Let's see the video below, where originalID is not the same as reportID:

For other archived chats we don't see this issue, in below video we get the originalID same as reportID and everything works as expected:

Now that we know what's the issue, we want to figure out why is that happening. From git lens, I stumbled upon this PR which introduced the usage of originalID while marking a report as unread. Prior to that PR, we were using the reportID to mark the report as unread. So in the code, I made this change and I was still unable to mark the chat as unread. This happens because we are now passing the wrong lastReadTime to the API. The reason is that we have reportAction.created as undefined due to which we fallback to get the lastActionTime from other users. See the video below:

We can fix this by explicitly checking, if the reportAction.created is undefined, we can get the lastVisibleActionCreated from the report using the reportID. This fixes the issue and we are able to mark the chat as unread. 🎉

We can also explore another solution, which is to check whether the report associated with the originalID is unread. If yes, we will mark the current report unread as well.

   result.isUnread = isOriginalReportUnread || ReportUtils.isUnread(report) && !!report.lastActorAccountID;

In summary, I don't think these two issues have the same root cause and must be handled separately.

"Mark as read" in LHN context menu works perfect without this PR. Why can't we apply same approach when we open report?

"Mark as read" in LHN context menu works perfect without this PR. Why can't we apply same approach when we open report?

I am not sure you're following through the findings shared in the slack thread and here. Again, the reason is that readNewestAction is called when we use Mark as read from LHN context menu. This same function is called when some conditions are true in ReportActionsList BUT those conditions are never true in case of archived reports. In this PR we are fixing those conditions to be able to call readNewestAction.

@hurali97 you may think I am asking stupid question but your solution doesn't work for me at all. Please see this video:

@hurali97 you may think I am asking stupid question but your solution doesn't work for me at all. Please see this video:

Screen.Recording.2024-07-18.at.12.27.53.AM.mov

@mkhutornyi Thanks for showing the video, it's easier and clearer to see the issue now. What we fixed in this PR was the case where the archived report is already unread and in that case, this PR works fine.

Now that you're trying to manually mark it as unread and then trying to navigate to that report to mark it as read, it's a different case. I will see why this is not working, thanks 🙂

@mkhutornyi I tried this and it happened only 1 archived chat. The reason is that we have newMessageTimeReference ( report.lastReadTime ) and reportAction.created just fractionally different in the milliseconds. Hence, our updated condition doesn't work which checks for the string equality. We are getting these timestamps from the backend and report.lastReadTime and reportAction.created should be lesser than or equal.

Now, I think we can adjust the condition to check if it's an archived room, we will mark it as read, so the below change is what I suggest and it works as well:

diff --git a/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx b/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx
index 74629eb0df..6ce1ab4d0f 100644
--- a/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx
+++ b/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx
@@ -547,9 +547,7 @@ function ReportActionsList({
              * So the condition should be `<=` to mark the report as read. We will only use this condition when
              * the report is archived to not introduce any regression for other reports.
              */
-            const isTimeLesserOrEqual = ReportUtils.isArchivedRoom(report)
-                ? newMessageTimeReference && newMessageTimeReference <= reportAction.created
-                : newMessageTimeReference && newMessageTimeReference < reportAction.created;
+            const isTimeLesserOrEqual = ReportUtils.isArchivedRoom(report) || (newMessageTimeReference && newMessageTimeReference < reportAction.created);
             return (
                 isTimeLesserOrEqual &&
                 (ReportActionsUtils.isReportPreviewAction(reportAction) ? reportAction.childLastActorAccountID : reportAction.actorAccountID) !== Report.getCurrentUserAccountID()

Thanks. That solution looks promising. Still need to test and verify on my side.
Please appy that solution and resolve conflict.

P.S. It would be good to provide clear repro step from the beginning because

"Mark as unread" is also not working (with different root cause), hard to re-reproduce original bug once read.

Thanks. That solution looks promising. Still need to test and verify on my side. Please appy that solution and resolve conflict.

P.S. It would be good to provide clear repro step from the beginning because

"Mark as unread" is also not working (with different root cause), hard to re-reproduce original bug once read.

Great. I mentioned the following steps in the PR description, which you can also take in order to validate whether an unread archived chat is being marked as read:

Steps:

Go to the unread archived chat and click on it
Verify that it's marked as read, which means bold indicator will be removed

I have applied the changes. Please let me know if you're able to mark an unread archived chat as read.

@mkhutornyi Any updates on the review? 🙂

@hurali97 still there's case:

After debugging, I found that report object flickers when open report.

{
    "lastReadTime": "2024-03-12 11:14:40.605",
    "reportID": "2188332613216872",
    "policyID": "52676905ED9C27E0",
    "lastVisibleActionCreated": "2024-03-12 11:14:46.197",
    "statusNum": 2,
    "stateNum": 2,
    "writeCapability": "all",
    "type": "chat",
    "errorFields": {},
    "chatType": "policyExpenseChat",
    "reportName": "Chat Report",
    "description": "",
    "managerID": 0,
    "total": 0,
    "nonReimbursableTotal": 0,
    "ownerAccountID": 14835703,
    "currency": "USD",
    "unheldTotal": 0,
    "participants": {
        "14835703": {
            "hidden": false
        }
    },
    "isWaitingOnBankAccount": false,
    "isOwnPolicyExpenseChat": true,
    "notificationPreference": "always",
    "isPinned": true,
    "oldPolicyName": "Mkhutorniy+2's Workspace 2",
    "policyName": "",
    "private_isArchived": "2024-07-22 18:46:25.406",
    "permissions": []
}

{
    "reportID": "2188332613216872",
    "reportName": "Chat Report",
    "type": "chat",
    "chatType": "policyExpenseChat",
    "ownerAccountID": 14835703,
    "managerID": 0,
    "policyID": "52676905ED9C27E0",
    "participants": {
        "14835703": {
            "hidden": false
        }
    },
    "participantAccountIDs": [],
    "visibleChatMemberAccountIDs": [],
    "isPinned": true,
    "lastReadTime": "2024-03-12 11:14:40.605",
    "lastReadSequenceNumber": 0,
    "lastVisibleActionCreated": "2024-03-12 11:14:46.197",
    "lastVisibleActionLastModified": "2024-03-12 11:14:46.197",
    "lastMessageText": "closed this report",
    "lastActionType": "CLOSED",
    "lastActorAccountID": "14835703",
    "notificationPreference": "always",
    "stateNum": 2,
    "statusNum": 2,
    "oldPolicyName": "Mkhutorniy+2's Workspace 2",
    "private_isArchived": "2024-07-22 18:46:25.406",
    "isOwnPolicyExpenseChat": true,
    "lastMessageHtml": "closed this report",
    "hasOutstandingChildRequest": false,
    "hasOutstandingChildTask": false,
    "policyName": "",
    "writeCapability": "all",
    "description": "",
    "total": 0,
    "unheldTotal": 0,
    "currency": "USD",
    "isWaitingOnBankAccount": false,
    "nonReimbursableTotal": 0,
    "isCancelledIOU": false,
    "errorFields": {},
    "permissions": [],
    "policyAvatar": "",
    "welcomeMessage": ""
}

So lastMessageText is sometimes undefined, sometimes "closed this report"
When undefined, this makes ReportUtils.isUnread always false because isEmptyReport is true.
So isUnreadArchivedReport is false.

@mkhutornyi Oh my bad. I have adjusted the condition now, we only check if the report is archived and if yes, then we mark it as read, no need for other conditions.

Please check this again and let me know, fingers crossed 🙂

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

Performance Comparison Report 📊

Significant Changes To Duration

Meaningless Changes To Duration

@Expensify/mobile-deployers 📣 Please look into this performance regression as it's a deploy blocker.

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.0.14-1 🚀

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

This PR was reverted in #46526 because of regression here #46501

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.0.14-6 🚀