[HOLD for payment 2024-10-24] De-dupe OpenApp requests.

[roryabraham]

Problem

We are seeing some scenarios where multiple OpenApp requests are serialized in a row. When multiple such requests are sent, it's redundant, slows down the app, and contributes to server traffic.

Solution

De-dupe OpenApp requests such that only one can be serialized at a time.

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @trjExpensify

[roryabraham]

cc @gedu

[gedu]

Hey, I'm Edu from Callstack, I can take this one

[roryabraham]

Going on parental leave. @gedu @mountiny @shubham1206agra I leave this in your capable hands. My parting note is to please use as many automated tests to cover this change as possible 👍🏼

[mountiny]

Thanks @gedu

[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 9.0.49-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [NoQA] Request conflict resolution for OpenApp #50258

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-10-24. 🎊

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

• @gedu does not require payment (Contractor)
• @shubham1206agra requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @trjExpensify (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.

[mountiny]

$250 to @shubham1206agra

[trjExpensify]

Payment due on the 24th Melv, chill mate.

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Contributor: @gedu is from an agency-contributor and not due payment
• ROLE: @shubham1206agra paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@trjExpensify)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[trjExpensify]

👋 @shubham1206agra can we get a checklist here please? Thanks!

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:

• [@shubham1206agra] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@shubham1206agra] 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:
• [@shubham1206agra] 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:
• [@shubham1206agra] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@shubham1206agra] 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.
• [@trjExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[shubham1206agra]

@trjExpensify This issue falls under new feature. So I will provide the test steps below.

1. Open the DevTools (3 dots -> More tools -> Developer Tools)
2. Go to Network tab, and throttle to Slow 4G
3. Sign in with an existing account
4. Send some messages (just to add items into the queue)
5. Sign out
6. Do steps 3 and 4 a couple of times
7. Observe that OpenApp request was fired only once in the Network tab.

[trjExpensify]

Hm, it doesn't sound like a new feature. @mountiny can you confirm that?

[trjExpensify]

^^ waiting for a response on that to confirm.

[mountiny]

I think this one is on the edge between a new feature and a bug. Essentially, it just worked as we designed the Sequential Queue, so this behaviour was expected. Later, we saw that this can cause unwanted performance bottlenecks, so we decided to change this behaviour.

So I agree its not necessary to be identifying the original PRs etc because the authors who worked on this know about this change.

@shubham1206agra your test is not complete, where is the tester checking for expected behaviour?

[shubham1206agra]

@mountiny Added the last step.

[trjExpensify]

Okay, thanks for that. Payment summary as follows:

• $250 to @shubham1206agra for the C+ review

Offer sent.

[shubham1206agra]

@trjExpensify Offer accepted

[trjExpensify]

Great, paid. Closing!

[melvin-bot]

@trjExpensify @mountiny Be sure to fill out the Contact List!