[HOLD for payment 2024-03-18] [$250] Room - Flag as offensive function is absent in the conversation, but present in the thread

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.4.38-0
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
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause internal team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Open https://staging.new.expensify.com/

2. Log in under your HT account A

3. In incognito mode, open https://staging.new.expensify.com/

4. Log in with a different account B

5. Under user A, create a WS

6. Invite user B to the created WS

7. Under user A, send a message to the @announce room

8. In the room settings, enable Who can post - Admins only

9. Under user B, right-click on a message from user A

10. Note that the Flag as offensive function is not available

11. Create a thread with this message

12. In the thread, right-click on the parent message

Expected Result:

The Flag as offensive function must be present in the conversation and is present in the thread. Or absent in the conversation and thread, if so intended.

Actual Result:

Flag as offensive function is absent in the conversation, but present in the thread

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

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6370545_1707321136324.Recording__1302.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~015264f638251d5c13
• Upwork Job ID: 1755273971773313024
• Last Price Increase: 2024-02-28
• Automatic offers:
• getusha | Reviewer | 0
• dukenv0307 | Contributor | 0

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~015264f638251d5c13

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @JmillsExpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[m-natarajan]

We think that this bug might be related #vip-vsb
CC @quinthar

[FitseTLT]

Proposal

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

Flag as offensive function is absent in the conversation, but present in the thread

What is the root cause of that problem?

The problem is on the room isAllowedToComment is false for the report action as the writeCapability is set to admin but when you create a thread with it isAllowedToComment is calculated according to the new thread as the report so now in the new thread it will be true and it will include flag as offensive menu item in the context menu

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

We need to check if it is the main message of a thread and ensure isAllowedToComment is calculated according to the parent report on which the report action originally belongs to not the thread

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 3857 to 3865 in f6ba751

	return Boolean(
	!isCurrentUserAction &&
	reportAction?.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.ADDCOMMENT &&
	!ReportActionsUtils.isDeletedAction(reportAction) &&
	!ReportActionsUtils.isCreatedTaskReportAction(reportAction) &&
	!isEmptyObject(report) &&
	report &&
	isAllowedToComment(report),
	);

    const reportActionReport = reportAction?.childReportID && Number(reportAction?.childReportID) === Number(reportID) ? getReport(report?.parentReportID) : report;

    return Boolean(
        !isCurrentUserAction &&
            reportAction?.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.ADDCOMMENT &&
            !ReportActionsUtils.isDeletedAction(reportAction) &&
            !ReportActionsUtils.isCreatedTaskReportAction(reportAction) &&
            !isEmptyObject(report) &&
            report &&
            isAllowedToComment(reportActionReport),
    );

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[dukenv0307]

Proposal

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

Flag as offensive function is absent in the conversation, but present in the thread

What is the root cause of that problem?

The report being used to check write capability here is not correct in case the report action being evaluated is the parent report action in a thread. In this case, we're currently checking the write capability of the child report rather than the parent report.

So let's say report action A belongs to #announce room, and a thread B is threaded from A, then when right click on the report action A inside thread B (as the first message/parent report action), the reportID and report here will be of the thread B, not #announce room

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 3841 in fe61eda

const report = getReport(reportID);

, user can post to the thread, but not to the #announce room, so they can flag the report action if it's displayed as parent report action of thread B, but cannot flag when it's displayed as a report action of #announce room.

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

In here, first check if the childReportID exists in reportAction and is equal to the reportID, if yes, this is the case of report action being evaluated is the parent report action in a thread, and we should get the parent report to evaluate instead.

let report = getReport(reportID);
if (reportAction?.childReportID && String(reportAction?.childReportID) === String(reportID)) {
    report = getReport(report?.parentReportID);
}

The correct parent report will then be used here and the right allowed to comment value will be retrieved.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[dukenv0307]

Proposal updated to add example code change and expand on RCA.

[dukenv0307]

@FitseTLT I'd suggest you to refrain from copying parts (or whole) of later proposals and add to yours (and without the proposal updated comment)

Here's @FitseTLT's proposal at the time I posted mine, just so @getusha is not confused