[HOLD for payment 2023-11-22] [TS migration] Migrate 'Hoverable' component to TypeScript

[melvin-bot]

TypeScript migration

Make sure you read through our TypeScript's style guide, cheatsheet and PropTypes conversion table before you start working on this migration issue.

Files

Path	Dependencies
src/components/Hoverable/index.native.js	4
src/components/Hoverable/index.js	4
src/components/Hoverable/hoverablePropTypes.js	1

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. eroding to Monthly issue.

P.S. Is everyone reading this sure this is really a near-term priority? Be brave: if you disagree, go ahead and close it out. If someone disagrees, they'll reopen it, and if they don't: one less thing to do!

[MaciejSWM]

Hey! I’m Maciej Dobosz from Software Mansion, an expert agency, and I’d like to work on this issue!

[melvin-bot]

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

[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 1.3.99-0 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [TS migration] Migrate Hoverable #30339
• [NoQA] fix wrong condition of assigning ref in Hoverable #31306

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-11-22. 🎊

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

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[situchan]

@AndrewGable can I get payment for work on #31306?

[AndrewGable]

Thoughts @mountiny? I would think you can get payment for review of TS migration, but not sure about the regression.

[mountiny]

Ah yeah thats a tricky one, we could have asked the PR creator for a fix but Situ was faster so we let them do that. I guess if we give $125 to @situchan we should deduct that from the C+ on the PR for missing the regression.

But in general its just not a good process

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @mallenexpensify (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

[mallenexpensify]

It looks like there are two PRs for this
#30339
#31306

Where #30339 had a regression so @allroundexperts would be due 50%, so $125.
I propose that @situchan also be paid $125 for the work/help here, even though, technically, @allroundexperts should have been responsible for the fix (partially because it's an edge case, partially because we want C+ fixing bugs expediently).

Does that look/sound right everyone?

[allroundexperts]

That sounds good to me @mallenexpensify!

I have a question though.

technically, @allroundexperts should have been responsible for the fix (partially because it's an edge case, partially because we want C+ fixing bugs expediently)

If the C+ is fixing the regression bug, then who would review the new PR? Shouldn't the roles remain the same as the original PR? ie. C+ reviews the fix and the original author fixes it?

[mallenexpensify]

Good question, I think I had that wrong.
Technically... the contributor should be responsible for fixing the regression and the C+ responsible for reviewing. My words were all mixed up. I meant to say the first sentence then "It's best practice for C+ to always be looking for deploy blockers and regressions and to try to expedite fixing them. There'll be times where someone else should have been responsible for the fix but working with a C+ is likely much quicker" (or... something like that, hope it makes more sense than before)

[situchan]

Deploy blockers are hourly and it's always possible that other C/C+ fix regressions given urgency, especially when original C/C+ is not available due to various factors like timezone.
@mallenexpensify there was discussion about regression penalty. Hope you can help with concluding that.

[mallenexpensify]

Started a discussion internally. Regardless... I still feel like the below is the the best for this issue, do you agree @situchan ?

I propose that @situchan also be paid $125 for the work/help here

[situchan]

Started a discussion internally. Regardless... I still feel like the below is the the best for this issue, do you agree @situchan ?

I propose that @situchan also be paid $125 for the work/help here

yes, fine for this issue.

Btw, for other deploy blockers, I see that normal bug bounty is applied to new C+

[mallenexpensify]

Btw, for other deploy blockers, I see that normal bug bounty is applied to new C+

My assumption is that the time it takes to work on the regressions and deploys is less than for the normal bug process (submit proposal, get accepted, raise PR, get accepted, +++). Do you agree?
(I also understand there's a benefit to the urgency of the work being done, I just want focus on the amount of time invested as a baseline for compensation percent)

[mallenexpensify]

@situchan can you please accept the job and reply here once you have?
https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0142456d483c28379c

It's $125 for now (and I think we'll hold to that amount) but I can bonus more if things change.

@situchan can you also review my comment above and provide feedback on my assumption?

And.. here's the internal discussion link, forgot to drop in before.

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable, @mallenexpensify Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable, @mallenexpensify Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable, @mallenexpensify 8 days overdue is a lot. Should this be a Weekly issue? If so, feel free to change it!

[mallenexpensify]

Contributor+: @situchan paid $125 via Upwork.

[JmillsExpensify]

$125 to @allroundexperts based on this comment.