[CP Staging] Fix regression marking as read report that is not focused

[FitseTLT]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #33680
$ #35251
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Login with User B and open a chat with User A and change to another tab on web

2. Now Send a message as User A to User B

3. Wait until the message arrives at User B and now as User B switch back to the tab you were chatting in (1)

4. Check that the LHN is not bold

5. Verify that unread marker indicates on the new message you sent in (2)

6. [User B Desktop] Open any report other than report with User A.

7. [User A web] Send a message to User B.

8. [User B Desktop] Without opening chat with User A, focus the window on the desktop app.

9. Verify that it is bold in LHN for the chat with User A

10. Open the chat and check unread marker is displayed properly

11. Switch to other chat and come back to it and check that now the marker is cleared

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

same

QA Steps

same

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG))
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

upl.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.web.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@abdulrahuman5196 Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[FitseTLT]

@abdulrahuman5196 @hayata-suenaga As this is linked to 2 deploy blockers let's fix it ASAP.

[tienifr]

@FitseTLT @abdulrahuman5196 Sorry for chiming in but I think it's better to move this check to before this line, to avoid redundant orphaned listeners that are of no use, especially if the user has a ton of chat.

[abdulrahuman5196]

@FitseTLT I think its fine to add the check at both places(the current one and the focus check suggested) which provide more rigid check and avoid stale listeners. Any reason we don't want the focus check? @FitseTLT

[tienifr]

Moreover, we don't render more than 5 report screens on the stack so no serious performance loss with the
current approach.

@FitseTLT it's not serious performance loss but I also don't see why we should keep those stale listeners, while removing listeners if not in use doesn't have any drawback and is definitely better (although not hugely better, but a lot of small optimizations will make the app smoother in aggregate)

cc @abdulrahuman5196

[FitseTLT]

With the current requirement we are running our effect based on visibilty which means if we unregister the listener on losing focus our effect will not run, for instance, when the RHp is open. Moreover, we don't render more than 5 report screens on the stack so no serious performance loss with the current approach.

…

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, 08:40 abdulrahuman5196, ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.js <#35292 (comment)>: > @@ -413,10 +414,15 @@ function ReportActionsList({ }, [calculateUnreadMarker, report.lastReadTime, messageManuallyMarkedUnread]); const onVisibilityChange = useCallback(() => { + if (report.reportID !== Navigation.getTopmostReportId()) { @FitseTLT <https://github.com/FitseTLT> I think its fine to add the check at both places(the current one and the focus check suggested) which provide more rigid check and avoid stale listeners. Any reason we don't want the focus check? @FitseTLT <https://github.com/FitseTLT> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#35292 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJG4AZLNTU3CAGN4YQP4EW3YQ4Y5PAVCNFSM6AAAAABCOM5YSSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMYTQNBXHA3DKNJUGM> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[abdulrahuman5196]

for instance, when the RHp is open

@FitseTLT This should be expected IMO. The unread should update only when its in view.

[mountiny]

@FitseTLT @abdulrahuman5196 This is a last deploy blocker, what are the next steps?

[FitseTLT]

@abdulrahuman5196 Unregistering a visibility change listener on focus event change is not at all the right thing to do. If we decide to unregister stale listeners it should be when the top most report id changes and in terms of performance it will be a trade-off between do we want early return on visibility change listener (given that there will only be at most 5 report screen in the stack) or do we want to register unregister everytime a top-most report changes.

[abdulrahuman5196]

@FitseTLT I partially agree to your callouts.
But I think we shouldn't change the unread when the view is not in focus. Similar to your callouts, we shouldn't change the unread status when RHP is in focus.

So focus check is also required here IMO. Also fine it can be achieved in different way without re-register.

Correct me if wrong @mountiny

[abdulrahuman5196]

FYI: @FitseTLT I have edited my above comment - #35292 (comment)

[tienifr]

register unregister everytime a top-most report changes.

I think it's good practice to unsubscribe listeners when they are not in use, we already did the same in the ReportActionsList. Register unregister listeners are lightweight operation, keeping 5 of them running at the same time is not 😄.

[FitseTLT]

@abdulrahuman5196 I don't think running the effect on visibility event but early return when the screen is not focus is a consistent approach, these are two different events. The ideal approach is to totally change our approach of running the effect on visibility change to focus event change but it will definitely have it's own complications but we can give it a try.

[mountiny]

Given there is not clear consensus about best approach and the staging regression is done, I will proceed with revert of the original PR and we can make these decisions on the original PR so we are sure we are implementing the best code possible.