Always use immediate parent report when rendering navigation header by barros001 · Pull Request #37436 · Expensify/App

barros001 · 2024-02-28T15:41:14Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #37111
PROPOSAL: #37111 (comment)

Tests

Test 1

Post "message 1" on a room
Click reply in thread on message 1
Post "message 2"
Click reply in thread on message 2
Verify that the header shows "message 2" as the main navigation title and "message 1" as the parent navigation item.

Test 2

Request money
Open the created money request
Send a message inside of it
Click "Reply in thread" on the message
Verify that the header shows the money request name in the navigation subtitle (and the workspace name if the request was made to the workspace).

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Test 1

Post "message 1" on a room
Click reply in thread on message 1
Post "message 2"
Click reply in thread on message 2
Verify that the header shows "message 2" as the main navigation title and "message 1" as the parent navigation item.

Test 2

Request money
Open the created money request
Send a message inside of it
Click "Reply in thread" on the message
Verify that the header shows the money request name in the navigation subtitle (and the workspace name if the request was made to the workspace).

QA Steps

Test 1

Post "message 1" on a room
Click reply in thread on message 1
Post "message 2"
Click reply in thread on message 2
Verify that the header shows "message 2" as the main navigation title and "message 1" as the parent navigation item.

Test 2

Request money
Open the created money request
Send a message inside of it
Click "Reply in thread" on the message
Verify that the header shows the money request name in the navigation subtitle (and the workspace name if the request was made to the workspace).

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.webm

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.web.webm

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.web.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

…arents, but rather always use the immediate parent

…type

melvin-bot · 2024-02-28T16:23:44Z

@paultsimura 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]

barros001 · 2024-02-28T16:28:22Z

PR still missing Android native video (still building the app, it takes a very long time for me, I'll add it once build finishes).

One comment, I opted to rename the rootReportName property from ParentNavigationSummaryParams type now that we no longer go after the root report name but rather just the immediate parent. I didn't make sense to keep the name.

barros001 · 2024-02-28T16:38:59Z

Android video uploaded

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T16:52:39Z

Thanks @barros001, I'm reviewing it now. In the meantime, could you please add another set of test steps to the PR description?

Test 1

Post "message 1" on a room
Click reply in thread on message 1
Post "message 2"
Click reply in thread on message 2
Verify that the header shows "message 2" as the main navigation title and "message 1" as the parent navigation item.

Test 2

Request money
Open the created money request
Send a message inside of it
Click "Reply in thread" on the message
Verify that the header shows the money request name in the navigation subtitle (and the workspace name if the request was made to the workspace).

barros001 · 2024-02-28T17:04:17Z

@paultsimura good point, I added the test scenario (and also performed it myself to verify it works, and it does).

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T17:44:14Z

Hey @barros001, here's a bold suggestion, but after digging deeper into the code and testing, I think we can just go with this (we may add one more check to address a bug I'll post in a separate comment):

function getParentNavigationSubtitle(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): ParentNavigationSummaryParams {
    const parentReport = getParentReport(report);
    if (isEmptyObject(parentReport)) {
        return {};
    }

    return {
        reportName: getReportName(parentReport),
        workspaceName: getPolicyName(parentReport, true),
    };
}

Could you please test if you could find any broken behavior if we go this way?

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T17:49:36Z

While testing this PR, I've noticed another bug (not related to the PR, reproducible in prod):

If you, as an admin of the workspace, open an expense report of a member, it shows From {member_name} in {workspace}, which makes sense:

However, if you open the same expense report as a member, it shows From {workspace} in {workspace}:

Should we hide the in {workspace} part in this case? I believe this was an initial design, but it either wasn't implemented correctly or broken at some point.

cc: @quinthar @chiragsalian

barros001 · 2024-02-28T18:33:51Z

However, if you open the same expense report as a member, it shows From {workspace} in {workspace}:

It appears that this happens every time you go one step deep from a Workspace. Go to any workspace, send a message and then click reply in thread. You will see "From Workspace in Workspace".

Looks like we need an extra check if the parent report is a workspace, if that's the case then we do not return the workspace name. That sounds simple, I'll check it out.

As far as your bold suggestion, I'm still looking but that makes me a little nervous because I'm not sure how to test all scenarios. For example, how do I navigate to a report where isIOURequest would return true? What about isExpenseRequest? For isExpenseRequest, why would we ever return FAKE if it's also a isIOUReport? I'm trying to go into each one of these scenarios but I can't seem to find them (maybe that answers my own question, they are no longer valid scenarios?).

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T18:58:50Z

It appears that this happens every time you go one step deep from a Workspace. Go to any workspace, send a message and then click reply in thread. You will see "From Workspace in Workspace".

That's a valuable addition, thanks. I've tested different scenarios – this bug seems complicated enough to deserve a separate issue IMO. So we'll proceed only with the current scope.

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T19:23:56Z

why would we ever return FAKE if it's also a isIOUReport

I can't think of a scenario where this is the case: a report cannot be both isExpenseRequest (a Transaction thread) and isIOUReport (a collection of 1:1 money requests) at the same time.

Moreover, if we return FAKE (I just messed with the code a bit), it'll show the Fake in the header:

Therefore, I think it's a dead code and we are safe to proceed with the change I suggested. I'll make sure to thoroughly test different cases.

barros001 · 2024-02-28T19:36:18Z

It appears that this happens every time you go one step deep from a Workspace. Go to any workspace, send a message and then click reply in thread. You will see "From Workspace in Workspace".
Looks like we need an extra check if the parent report is a workspace, if that's the case then we do not return the workspace name. That sounds simple, I'll check it out.

I've tested different scenarios – this bug seems quite complicated and deserves a separate issue IMO. So we'll proceed only with the current scope.

Agreed! As I had already spent some time digging, here's what I found, for future reference:

There's not simple way to tell a report is in fact a workspace, at least not that I could find. No easy report._some_property_ that would tell you that.
By inspect objects as I navigate and looking at code, looks like a workspace can be identified as a report that:
1. Is not a thread;
2. is a PolicyExpenseChat; and
3. report?.isOwnPolicyExpenseChat is true.

With that, here's what I tried:

Added the following function:

function isWorkspace(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {
    return !isThread(report) && isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && !!report?.isOwnPolicyExpenseChat;
}

Then updated the logic to check if it's a workspace, as follows:

    if (isWorkspace(parentReport) || isIOURequest(parentReport)) {
        return {
            reportName: getReportName(parentReport),
        };
    }

I tested the scenarios I could think of and it seems to work, including the one when an admin is viewing an expense report sent by another user (here's why report?.isOwnPolicyExpenseChat was necessary).

With all this said, this all looks very complicated and error prone. There's no simple way to tell things apart and there's way too much logic all over the codebase that it's hard to make assumptions (hence my hesitation of making the method short as you suggested). I'm always down to simplify things, make code better, but in this current situation I'm leaning towards staying on the pragmatism camp.

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T19:46:22Z

With all this said, this all looks very complicated and error prone. There's no simple way to tell things apart and there's way too much logic all over the codebase that it's hard to make assumptions (hence my hesitation of making the method short as you suggested). I'm always down to simplify things, make code better, but in this current situation I'm leaning towards staying on the pragmatism camp.

I understand your concerns, but from my tests, there is no error in the suggested simplified approach.
Let's just make a deal then: if a regression arises that wouldn't have happened without this simplification, I'll compensate your penalty from my share. Would that work?

barros001 · 2024-02-28T19:46:59Z

why would we ever return FAKE if it's also a isIOUReport

I can't think of a scenario where this is the case: a report cannot be both isExpenseRequest (a Transaction thread) and isIOUReport (a collection of 1:1 money requests) at the same time.

Moreover, if we return FAKE (I just messed with the code a bit), it'll show the Fake in the header:

Therefore, I think it's a dead code and we are safe to proceed with the change I suggested. I'll make sure to thoroughly test different cases.

Ok, I agree with you here, if we remove the FAKE condition then we can safely remove the whole if (isExpenseRequest(parentReport)) block as it would return exactly the same as the default response. I'll kill that block and push it.

We're not left with (just trying to slow down a bit to make sure I fully understand this):

    if (isIOURequest(parentReport)) {
        return {
            reportName: getReportName(parentReport),
        };
    }

In this case we would not return the workspace, and I wonder if this is related to the new bug you found where we don't want to return the workspace name when reportName is already the workspace name. I just could not find a scenario where that condition would be true though, did you?

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T19:47:12Z

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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- 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 form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label 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

Android: Native

android-compressed.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

chrome-compressed.mp4

iOS: Native

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-02-28.at.21.53.27-compressed.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-02-28.at.21.51.47-compressed.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-02-28.at.20.42.43-compressed.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-02-28.at.21.36.59-compressed.mp4

barros001 · 2024-02-28T19:53:48Z

@paultsimura I just pushed a simplified version. I still have the if (isIOURequest(parentReport)) { block in there, I just want to look a little bit further so that I gain a better understanding of that.

But I do trust you when you say you tested and didn't find any errors, you have a whole lot more experience with the codebase than I do. I'll push an update shortly.

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T19:58:39Z

No, hold on please. I'll test a few more cases that look suspicious 🤔

barros001 · 2024-02-28T20:13:53Z

@paultsimura alright, I found where if (isIOURequest(parentReport)) { is used, and maybe we should really keep it there (or maybe not!)

Here are the steps:

Account 1, click + then SEND MONEY
Select Account 2 and click Pay Elsewhere
On Account 2, navigate to the new report for the payment that shows up on LHN
Click on the payment report
Click AGAIN on the payment report
Send a message
Click reply in a thread

That's when that block is true.

Here's a screenshot without that if block.

Notice the header where it says in carlos+1's Expenses. That if block was meant to remove that part.

Here's a screenshot of how it currently is:

So that if block removes that in carlos+1's Expenses from the header.

Thoughts?

paultsimura · 2024-02-28T20:22:26Z

About the thing with the isIOURequest:

An IOU request is a 1:1 money request (not a request from a workspace). Therefore, there should not be a policy related to the parent report (except for the personal expense policy, which is currently shown in the subtitle in production).

I did notice the same thing you've mentioned here, therefore I asked to hold on. But if you check production – this check has no effect, and the in carlos+1's Expenses is not cut off there.

If we leave this check, we'll basically introduce a new inconsistent behavior (e.g. if you create a thread inside that thread, the in carlos+1's Expenses will be visible in that 2nd level thread again).

So I would say we should remove this check as well (so the workspace name is consistent with the production) and if we consider it as a but – we should address it separately along with the From {workspace} in {workspace} bug as they're more or less related.

barros001 · 2024-02-28T20:25:45Z

About the thing with the isIOURequest:

An IOU request is a 1:1 money request (not a request from a workspace). Therefore, there should not be a policy related to the parent report (except for the personal expense policy, which is currently shown in the subtitle in production).

I did notice the same thing you've mentioned here, therefore I asked to hold on. But if you check production – this check has no effect, and the in carlos+1's Expenses is not cut off there.

If we leave this check, we'll basically introduce a new inconsistent behavior (e.g. if you create a thread inside that thread, the in carlos+1's Expenses will be visible in that 2nd level thread again).

So I would say we should remove this check as well (so the workspace name is consistent with the production) and if we consider it as a but – we should address it separately along with the From {workspace} in {workspace} bug as they're more or less related.

Came here to say pretty much the same. I just noticed that having the in Carlos+1's Expenses is actually the correct behavior. It's added there by the recursive call back to the root. Removing recursion would remove this part from the header, creating a new bug. That's because of the if (isIOURequest(parentReport)) { block. Removing that as well makes it bahave as expected.

I'll go ahead and push a new version.

…eader when it was not supposed to.

barros001 · 2024-02-28T20:31:01Z

Done, new version pushed. Phew! That was a tricky one. I appreciate the thorough review and feedback.

paultsimura

LGTM!

@barros001 thanks for keeping the discussion here fruitful 💪

OSBotify · 2024-02-28T21:06:42Z

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

OSBotify · 2024-02-29T00:08:43Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 1.4.45-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

OSBotify · 2024-02-29T23:33:10Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.45-6 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

barros001 added 3 commits February 28, 2024 10:28

when getting the navigation subtitle, do not recursively go through p…

2abcf72

…arents, but rather always use the immediate parent

combine getParentNavigationSubtitle and getReportAndWorkspaceName

4d9846a

renamed rootReportName to reportNameon ParentNavigationSummaryParams …

610ce26

…type

barros001 marked this pull request as ready for review February 28, 2024 16:23

barros001 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 28, 2024 16:23

melvin-bot Bot requested review from paultsimura and removed request for a team February 28, 2024 16:23

simplified getParentNavigationSubtitle logic

46ecf24

barros001 added 2 commits February 28, 2024 15:27

Merge branch 'main' into fix/37111

5f8b459

removed unnecessary if block that was removing the policy name from h…

663eb40

…eader when it was not supposed to.

paultsimura approved these changes Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from cristipaval February 28, 2024 20:56

cristipaval approved these changes Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

cristipaval merged commit 4cd33a3 into Expensify:main Feb 28, 2024

rayane-d mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-05-15] HIGH: [Polish] [$500] Redesign thread ancestry #36752

Closed

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-02-28 #37459

Closed

91 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Feb 29, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-03-07] [$500] Wrong header is shown for 2nd and 3rd level of child threads #37111

Closed

6 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024

Test 1

Test 2

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

paultsimura left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 29, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 29, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

paultsimura commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

barros001 commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading