[HOLD for payment 2023-10-05] [Payment due Oct 2 2023 $500] Search - The avatars order are different in LHN and RHN.

[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. Open search RHN.
2. Observe the avatar order in LHN and RHN.

Expected Result:

The avatars order should not be different.

Actual Result:

The avatars order are different.

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: v1.3.70-2

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

2023-09-15.14.06.30.mov

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: @oleksandr-pantsyr

Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1692809283563059

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f2234c9135bc93ec
• Upwork Job ID: 1702693333674766336
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-15
• Automatic offers:
• hoangzinh | Contributor | 26788701

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @michaelhaxhiu (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

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f2234c9135bc93ec

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[b4s36t4]

Not able to repro.

[hoangzinh]

Proposal

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

Search - The avatars order are different in LHN and RHN.

What is the root cause of that problem?

There is inconsistency between LHN and Search when calling ReportUtils.getIcons to get icons for a report
Search:

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Line 548 in 1862aff

result.icons = ReportUtils.getIcons(report, personalDetails, UserUtils.getAvatar(personalDetail.avatar, personalDetail.accountID), false, personalDetail.login, personalDetail.accountID);

LHN:

App/src/libs/SidebarUtils.js

Line 357 in 1862aff

result.icons = ReportUtils.getIcons(report, personalDetails, UserUtils.getAvatar(personalDetail.avatar, personalDetail.accountID), true, '', -1, policy);

The 4th param isPayer of Search is false while LHN is true, it leads to the inconsistency with the order here

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.js

Line 1062 in 1862aff

return isPayer ? [managerIcon, ownerIcon] : [ownerIcon, managerIcon];

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

I think we don't really need to render different order between payer and payee here

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.js

Line 1062 in 1862aff

return isPayer ? [managerIcon, ownerIcon] : [ownerIcon, managerIcon];

Just render either [managerIcon, ownerIcon] or [ownerIcon, managerIcon] for all access users

The param isPayer is introduced by this PR https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/19392/files, but at this time, we only render 1 avatar for either Payer or Payee. Now, since this change 55e4f06#diff-65c096044d5f69b35bcdec14c99c4fda4580759df9b1a7c36650d58eea276f1dR845, we render both avatars of Payer and Payee, so IMO, I think we don't need the isPayer param anymore.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

In this place

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.js

Line 1078 in 6d67552

return isPayer ? [managerIcon, ownerIcon] : [ownerIcon, managerIcon];

Instead of basing on the input isPayer, because we already passed the report object into this util, we can use it to check if the current user is report.managerID, so current user is Payer, then we can continuous to return ordering base on this value.

[allroundexperts]

I would agree that App/src/libs/ReportUtils.js condition is redundant. I'd still confirm this in the open source channel. @hoangzinh Can you please write up a post and tag me and @michaelhaxhiu so we can get some more eyes?

[hoangzinh]

sure @allroundexperts I'm getting thoughts in this thread https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1695088612139029

[allroundexperts]

OK as per the above discussion, it seems like adding the isPayee condition was intentional. I think @hoangzinh's alternate solution would work well.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

📣 @allroundexperts Please request via NewDot manual requests for the Reviewer role ($500)

[melvin-bot]

📣 @hoangzinh 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[melvin-bot]

🎯 ⚡️ Woah @hoangzinh / @allroundexperts / @hoangzinh, great job pushing this forwards! ⚡️

The pull request got merged within 3 working days of assignment, so this job is eligible for a 50% #urgency bonus 🎉

• when @hoangzinh got assigned: 2023-09-21 02:50:09 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-09-25 01:59:02 UTC

On to the next one 🚀

[melvin-bot]

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

[michaelhaxhiu]

I'm re-assigning this to another BZ as part of my preparation for Sabbatical (starting Friday).

Next steps:

• Wait till 7 days after PR is merged to pay
• Then, payout the following amounts (assuming no regressions):

Payment amounts:

Job: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01f2234c9135bc93ec

• Bug reporter $250 @oleksandr-pantsyr
• Contributor: $750 @hoangzinh
• C+: $750 @allroundexperts (should request payment via newDot)

[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 1.3.74-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix The avatars order are different in LHN and Search RHN #27940

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-05. 🎊

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:

• @hoangzinh requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @allroundexperts does not require payment (Eligible for Manual Requests)

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:

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

[sophiepintoraetz]

@michaelhaxhiu was incorrect with his bug payment - it's $50 for reports, not $250.

[sophiepintoraetz]

@allroundexperts please request $750 once the BZ checklist is completed!
@oleksandr-pantsyr - an offer should be with you now!

[allroundexperts]

Reviewer Checklist

1. I think this was a missed case with our original implementation. As such, there isn't any PR that caused this.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. A regression test would be helpful.

Regression Test Steps

1. Login as User A and request money from User B.
2. Login as User B and request money from User C.
3. Open the New chat search RHN.

Verify that the avatars order of IOU report of User A to User B is userB-userA in both LHN and Search page
Verify that the avatars order of IOU report of User B to User C is userB-userC in both LHN and Search page

Do we 👍 or 👎 ?

[JmillsExpensify]

$750 payment approved for @allroundexperts based on BZ summary.

[JmillsExpensify]

Re-opening for regression test.

[mountiny]

https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/326434