Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Expense - Incorrectly fallback avatar is shown for split expense #49884

Open
1 of 6 tasks
lanitochka17 opened this issue Sep 28, 2024 · 11 comments
Open
1 of 6 tasks

Expense - Incorrectly fallback avatar is shown for split expense #49884

lanitochka17 opened this issue Sep 28, 2024 · 11 comments
Assignees
Labels
Engineering Monthly KSv2 Reviewing Has a PR in review

Comments

@lanitochka17
Copy link

lanitochka17 commented Sep 28, 2024

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: 9.0.41-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

  1. Launch app
  2. Tap on a workspace chat
  3. Create a manual split expense
  4. Note the avatar of split expense

Expected Result:

Fall back avatar musn't be shown for split expense

Actual Result:

Incorrectly fallback avatar is shown for split expense

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

Bug6617843_1727469195403.Screenrecorder-2024-09-28-01-57-12-949_compress_1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

@lanitochka17 lanitochka17 added DeployBlockerCash This issue or pull request should block deployment DeployBlocker Indicates it should block deploying the API labels Sep 28, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

👋 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.

Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 28, 2024

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

@huult
Copy link
Contributor

huult commented Sep 29, 2024

Proposal

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

Incorrectly fallback avatar is shown for split expense

What is the root cause of that problem?

The fallback avatar is showing in the split expense due to this condition check.

CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU,

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

We should remove CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU for it to work as expected in this ticket. Something like this:

shouldShowSubscriptAvatar={
                (ReportUtils.isPolicyExpenseChat(report) || ReportUtils.isInvoiceRoom(report)) &&
                [
-                    CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU,
                    CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.REPORT_PREVIEW,
                    CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.SUBMITTED,
                    CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.APPROVED,
                    CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.FORWARDED,
                ].some((type) => type === reportAction.actionName)
            }
POC
Screen.Recording.2024-09-29.at.22.43.20.mp4

@Gonals Gonals removed the DeployBlocker Indicates it should block deploying the API label Sep 30, 2024
@Gonals
Copy link
Contributor

Gonals commented Sep 30, 2024

Seems to be a frontend issue, so not a Web-E blocker

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor

tgolen commented Sep 30, 2024

@grgia It looks like this is probably a regression from #49172. Would you be able to take a look at this?

@grgia
Copy link
Contributor

grgia commented Sep 30, 2024

Looking, but I think the problem is that two reports are created? this is the split in new dot for me, I don't see a submit button

Screenshot 2024-09-30 at 5 35 18 PM

Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 30, 2024

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 30, 2024

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

@jasperhuangg
Copy link
Contributor

We reverted the problematic PR #49945. Gonna remove the label but keep this open so @grgia can fix this in a followup.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot added Monthly KSv2 and removed Weekly KSv2 labels Oct 31, 2024
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 31, 2024

This issue has not been updated in over 15 days. @grgia 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!

@grgia
Copy link
Contributor

grgia commented Nov 29, 2024

Need to retest this one

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Engineering Monthly KSv2 Reviewing Has a PR in review
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants