[HOLD for payment 2024-03-11] [$500] when a user leaves a thread, clicking the back button does not navigate them back to that specific thread

[kavimuru]

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:
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: @rafecolton
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1705948892215059

Action Performed:

1. Join a thread by commenting in it
2. Leave the thread and get taken back to the DM or channel
3. Hit the back button (or three-finger swipe, cmd + [)

Expected Result:

you are taken back to the thread you were just viewing

Actual Result:

that thread does not appear in the history, and you are taken back to whatever chat you were viewing before

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

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0166e0dcdf98b9fd23
• Upwork Job ID: 1756011506926768128
• Last Price Increase: 2024-02-16
• Automatic offers:
• akinwale | Reviewer | 0
• FitseTLT | Contributor | 0

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[muttmuure]

Interesting - I can reproduce this

[muttmuure]

I can still see the thread in search

[muttmuure]

However the back button indeed doesn't work to navigate back to the thread I just left. It seems like some polish an external contributor could handle

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0166e0dcdf98b9fd23

[melvin-bot]

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

[FitseTLT]

This is intentional @muttmuure We remove it from route history.

App/src/libs/actions/Report.ts

Lines 2277 to 2289 in b9aada8

	if (lastAccessedReportID) {
	// We should call Navigation.goBack to pop the current route first before navigating to Concierge.
	Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.HOME);
	Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(lastAccessedReportID));
	} else {
	const participantAccountIDs = PersonalDetailsUtils.getAccountIDsByLogins([CONST.EMAIL.CONCIERGE]);
	const chat = ReportUtils.getChatByParticipants(participantAccountIDs);
	if (chat?.reportID) {
	// We should call Navigation.goBack to pop the current route first before navigating to Concierge.
	Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.HOME);
	Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(chat.reportID));
	}
	}

[FitseTLT]

Proposal

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

If someone sends a message in a thread and leaves it disappear from their LHN

What is the root cause of that problem?

We goBack in here before navigating to the reports after leaving thread so it will be removed from the route history so navigating back will not navigate to the thread

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

I think this behaviour ^ should only be applied for rooms but for a Chat Thread we should n't goBack so change it to

if (lastAccessedReportID) {
        // We should call Navigation.goBack to pop the current route first before navigating to Concierge.
        if (!ReportUtils.isChatThread(report)) {
            Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.HOME);
        }
        Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(lastAccessedReportID));
    } else {
        const participantAccountIDs = PersonalDetailsUtils.getAccountIDsByLogins([CONST.EMAIL.CONCIERGE]);
        const chat = ReportUtils.getChatByParticipants(participantAccountIDs);
        if (chat?.reportID) {
            // We should call Navigation.goBack to pop the current route first before navigating to Concierge.
            if (!ReportUtils.isChatThread(report)) {
                Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.HOME);
            }
            Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(chat.reportID));
        }
    }

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[FitseTLT]

@muttmuure I had a second thought on #35810 (comment) I think we should only clear it from history for chat rooms for simple chat threads we shouldn't so I have commented a proposal based on it.

[melvin-bot]

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

[muttmuure]

@akinwale mind reviewing the proposal above?

[akinwale]

We can move forward with @FitseTLT's proposal here.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed.

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[melvin-bot]

@akinwale @techievivek @muttmuure this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

@akinwale, @techievivek, @muttmuure Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.46-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix-unable to navigate back after leaving chat threads #37355

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-03-11. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @akinwale requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @FitseTLT requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[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:

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

[techievivek]

Not overdue, payment is due on 11 March.

[techievivek]

Oops, looks like automation didn't work here. @muttmuure Could we issue the payment here.

[melvin-bot]

@akinwale, @techievivek, @FitseTLT, @muttmuure Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[techievivek]

Gentle bump @muttmuure to look into the payment for this GH. 🙏

[muttmuure]

Was out of office, looking now!

[muttmuure]

All paid

[muttmuure]

@akinwale @FitseTLT please can you recommend if we need a regression test

[techievivek]

Gentle bump @akinwale @FitseTLT for the regression tests here.

[akinwale]

• [@akinwale] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@akinwale] 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:
• [@akinwale] 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:

Not necessarily a regression. The behaviour was intentionally modified.

• [@akinwale] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@akinwale] 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.

Regression Test Steps

1. Launch Expensify.
2. Join a thread by commenting in an existing thread or start a new thread.
3. Leave the thread.
4. Navigate back (using the Back button or a shortcut for navigating back).
5. Verify that the app navigated back to the same thread that was just exited.

Do we agree 👍 or 👎?

[akinwale]

@techievivek Done!

[techievivek]

Looks good to me, @muttmuure can we add this to testrail? thanks.

[techievivek]

Gentle bump @muttmuure for adding the regression test to testRail.

[muttmuure]

Done