[$500] Chat - When navigating to chat via URL, user has to tap on back arrow twice to return to LHN

[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: 1.4.64-0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: n
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/4501393
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause internal team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Log in to New Expensify
2. Navigate to any chat and copy its URL
3. Return to LHN and navigate to the chat via URL
4. Tap on back arrow

Expected Result:

User should redirected back to the LHN.

Actual Result:

User remains in the chat, has to tap on back arrow once again to return to the LHN.
Also reproducible when logging in via conversation direct URL.

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

Bug6457935_1713817481164.Record_2024-04-22-22-07-59.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01178464ec2ad2a33e
• Upwork Job ID: 1782696560950165504
• Last Price Increase: 2024-04-23
• Automatic offers:
• eh2077 | Reviewer | 0
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 0

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @robertjchen (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @alexpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[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.

[kavimuru]

@alexpensify FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors.

[kavimuru]

We think this bug might be related to #vip-vsb

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01178464ec2ad2a33e

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @eh2077 (External)

[mountiny]

We are getting close to deploying, I am going to demote this issue because:

• only related to deeplinking to report in narrow view which is rare flow for a user in itself
• it seems to only be relevant to mWeb
• while annoying ux its not blocking the user from using the app
• its one off as once they are in the lhn and use the app it will work properly

[melvin-bot]

Upwork job price has been updated to $500

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

User remains in the chat, has to tap on back arrow once again to return to the LHN.
Also reproducible when logging in via conversation direct URL.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we open a report by deep link, we will navigate to the report here and it will call linkTo function.

App/src/libs/actions/Report.ts

Line 2437 in 915a1b6

Navigation.navigate(route as Route, CONST.NAVIGATION.ACTION_TYPE.PUSH);

Let see this condition here. We're comparing the params object of topmostCentralPaneRoute and action.payload.params?. It's true when we open the report by deep link because topmostCentralPaneRoute has another param is OpenOnAdminRoom that is initialized here

App/src/libs/Navigation/linkTo.ts

Line 156 in 915a1b6

const areParamsDifferent = !shallowCompare(topmostCentralPaneRoute?.params, action.payload.params?.params);

That makes we move to this case and then another report screen is opened because the action.type is push here.

App/src/libs/Navigation/linkTo.ts

Line 176 in 915a1b6

action.type = CONST.NAVIGATION.ACTION_TYPE.PUSH;

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

We should only compare the reportID param as we did in the past instead of comparing the value of params field and we can change this variable name to areReportIDParamsDifferent

const areReportIDParamsDifferent = getTopmostReportId(rootState) !== getTopmostReportId(stateFromPath);

or

const areReportIDParamsDifferent = topmostCentralPaneRoute?.params?.reportID !== action.payload.params?.params?.reportID;

App/src/libs/Navigation/linkTo.ts

Line 156 in 915a1b6

const areParamsDifferent = !shallowCompare(topmostCentralPaneRoute?.params, action.payload.params?.params);

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Or we can set initialParams as undefined if openOnAdminRoom is not "true" instead of always adding openOnAdminRoom param here.

initialParams={openOnAdminRoom === 'true' ? {openOnAdminRoom: true} : undefined}

App/src/libs/Navigation/AppNavigator/Navigators/CentralPaneNavigator/BaseCentralPaneNavigator.tsx

Line 42 in 915a1b6

initialParams={{openOnAdminRoom: openOnAdminRoom === 'true' || undefined}}

[nkdengineer]

Updated proposal to add alternative solution.

[eh2077]

@nkdengineer Thanks for your proposal!

I agree with your RCA but I have concerns about your main solution - the shallowCompare function may also compare other properties of params like filter. I think the alternative solution you proposed fixes the root cause. Although this issue is uncovered by a recent new feature, the root cause has been there for a while.

That said, I think we can go with @nkdengineer 's proposal.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @robertjchen is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[abzokhattab]

Proposal

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

Reports are opening twice when accessed via deep-linking by logged-in users or when the report is public.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When a user opens a report via deep-link, the openReportFromDeepLink function is called. This function includes InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions, which is designed for scenarios where an unauthenticated user accesses a private report using deep linking (as mentioned in this comment). In such cases, the user is directed to the sign-in page and then redirected to the report (here).

However, this setup does not account for situations where the user is already signed in or the report is public. In these cases, the user won't be redirected to the sign-in page, and the report will be opened so the InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions navigates again to the report (here), leading to the report being opened twice.

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

To address this issue, we should first check if the report is already open before initiating another navigation to the same report. We can achieve this by utilizing the Navigation.getTopmostReportId here and check if its equal to the current reportID

       const topmostReportId = Navigation.getTopmostReportId();
                if (topmostReportId === reportID) {
                    return;
                }

[abzokhattab]

Hi @eh2077, I would appreciate your feedback on my proposal. I believe we should not navigate to the report from the beginning if it is already open.

[eh2077]

@abzokhattab At the first glance, I'm not convinced your RCA and I have concerns about your solution - will it just avoid opening RHP screens? I could be wrong and I'll take a deeper look later. Sorry, I'll be offline in following hours.

[abzokhattab]

I'm not convinced your RCA

i will clarify it more. thanks

will it just avoid opening RHP screens?

The part inside the InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions is intended for scenarios where an unauthenticated user accesses a private report using deeplinking (as mentioned in this comment). in this case, the user will be directed to the sign-in page and then be redirected to the report afterward

However, this code does not account for situations where the user is already signed in or the report is public, in those cases the user won't be redirected to the sign-in page and the report will be already opened causing unnecessary navigation and thus opening the report twice.

Does that answer your question? please let me know

[nkdengineer]

Just a note here

The solution here #40743 (comment) will cause the regression if we open the sub page of report i.e. report detail page by deep link.

Actually, in linkTo function, we had the logic to replace or add a new screen when we navigate to a page that why this bug doesn't happen in the past with navigation logic in openReportFromDeeplink function . So we should fix the current wrong logic in this function.

[eh2077]

@abzokhattab Thanks for your comment. I partially agreed with your RCA and I tested your solution. It fixes the issue and also avoids my concerns about opening RHP screens - the reportID is empty string "" and topmostReportId is undefined when opening a RHP like report details page. But I still think it's not the best way to fix this issue in method openReportFromDeeplink.

[eh2077]

@nkdengineer Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Actually, in linkTo function, we had the logic to replace or add a new screen when we navigate to a page that why this bug doesn't happen in the past with navigation logic in openReportFromDeeplink function . So we should fix the current wrong logic in this function.

Yes, I agreed with you. This issue is ideal to be fixed in the linkTo function. Just want to extend discussion about your solutions, can we fix this issue by improving the shallowCompare method? For example, let it omit parameter key with undefined value. Maybe this can be discussed in PR.

[eh2077]

According to the discussions above^, I tend to stick to the original review decision #40743 (comment)

@robertjchen All yours.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @robertjchen is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[robertjchen]

Appreciate the proposals and discussions here! 🙇 After reviewing, I think we will go with @nkdengineer 's proposal

[melvin-bot]

📣 @eh2077 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

📣 @nkdengineer 🎉 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 📖

[alexpensify]

Weekly Update: Waiting for this one to go to Production

[alexpensify]

Waiting for automation here

[alexpensify]

@eh2077 - can you please confirm if there is any more action here? It looks like the automation didn't kick in, and I believe that the 7-day mark is today. I need to move forward with the payment process, but I want to double-check. Thanks!

[alexpensify]

@nkdengineer - can you update me if there is any other action here? Thanks!

[eh2077]

Checklist

• [@eh2077] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: [Search v1] Implement Search navigation logic #40280
• [@eh2077] 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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/40280/files#r1600762277
• [@eh2077] 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: N/A
• [@eh2077] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. I don't think we need to add a regression test for it

cc @alexpensify

[alexpensify]

Payouts due: 2024-05-13 - delayed due to automation failure

• Contributor: $500 @nkdengineer
• Contributor+: $500 @eh2077

Upwork job is here. This was treated as a High and is the reason for the payment amount. I've closed the job and paid everyone via Upwork.