[$500] Avatar - Avatar is blank instead of placeholder and no spinner when loading it offline

[kbecciv]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.4.17-1
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: n
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
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Launch New Expensify app.
2. Go offline.
3. Tap Search.
4. Search for users with custom avatar.
5. Tap on the user with blank custom avatar.
6. Tap on the chat head
7. Tap on the avatar

Expected Result:

In Step 4, users with custom avatar will show the avatar placeholder (production behavior - circular head with body with green background).
In Step 7, spinner will be shown when loading user avatar.

Actual Result:

In Step 4, the users with custom avatar are blank and gray.
In Step 7, the spinner only appears for a split second.

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

Bug6326350_1703616605864.staging.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017c4e38b1b18578d0
• Upwork Job ID: 1739771161764048896
• Last Price Increase: 2024-01-23
• Automatic offers:
• aswin-s | Contributor | 28129529
• dukenv0307 | Contributor | 28135456

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @bfitzexpensify

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @marcaaron (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[kbecciv]

Issue is not reproducible on production

Bug6326350_1703616605871.production.mp4

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[marcaaron]

I guess either related to personal details or the search page. This PR looks the most likely culprit, but have not reverted to test the theory yet.

[marcaaron]

Oh hmm it could also be this ginormous expo image PR #30905

[situchan]

Oh hmm it could also be this ginormous expo image PR #30905

I believe it. As this bug was tagged only on android/iOS.

#33347 doesn't depend on platform

[marcaaron]

I don't feel strongly that this needs to be a blocker. When you come back online the images are restored. But will leave it to the deployer to make the final decision.

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017c4e38b1b18578d0

[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]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @eVoloshchak, @marcaaron, @bfitzexpensify, @dukenv0307 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!

[dukenv0307]

@bfitzexpensify Please add the weekly label again, the PR is still reviewing.

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @eVoloshchak, @marcaaron, @bfitzexpensify, @dukenv0307 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!

[eVoloshchak]

@bfitzexpensify, this was resolved by another PR (#38674), what should be our next steps?

[eVoloshchak]

@bfitzexpensify, a gentle bump on the above

[bfitzexpensify]

Thanks for the bump @eVoloshchak.

@marcaaron, do you think the work in #35639 constitutes perhaps a half-payment out here?

[marcaaron]

Honestly, I'm not sure. While there was investigation, PR created, partial review, etc. It feels like we might have missed the mark on urgency here. Observations: The PR was marked ready for review three months ago. The alternate PR merged 3 weeks ago. Is there any explanation for why we couldn't get this merged in that time?

[eVoloshchak]

Is there any explanation for why we couldn't get this merged in that time?

We never arrived at a fix that would work for all of the cases, this one specifically. I agree we should have been faster, no payment seems fair to me personally

[bfitzexpensify]

Thanks for the comments. I think skipping payment for missing on urgency here is fair. Closing this one out.

[dukenv0307]

@marcaaron @bfitzexpensify Our PR #35639 fixed this issue and we completed it a long time ago. The problem is I tried to explain the confusion in this case #35639 (review) from @eVoloshchak which is not a bug. The PR #38674 fixed this issue and has the same idea as my proposal, the only difference is instead of using the current fill color of the default avatar we apply the theme color for this avatar in this PR #38674. So I think payment here for C and C+ is fair since we spent lots of effort in the PR and it's almost completed.

[dukenv0307]

@bfitzexpensify Please check my comment above when you have a chance.

[mallenexpensify]

Reopened and made @bfitzexpensify the owner to get 👀, removed 'reviewing' too.

[bfitzexpensify]

Reviewed again. Agree that there was a substantial amount of work, but I still think it missed the mark on urgency. Given that, I think a 50% payout is fair here.

Payment summary:

@dukenv0307 to be paid $250 for contributor work - offer sent via Upwork
@eVoloshchak to be paid $250 for C+ work via manual request

[dukenv0307]

Thanks @bfitzexpensify for helping here, I've accepted the offer.

[bfitzexpensify]

You're very welcome. Payment complete. Closing this out again.

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @eVoloshchak