fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted #42742

dominictb · 2024-05-29T09:13:03Z

Details

Update the logic to calculate the unread marker to fix the issue where marker disappears when the message is deleted

Fixed Issues

$ #41935
PROPOSAL: #41935 (comment)

Tests

Open the testing app as first user
Open any chat as user A (not the chat with user B)
As a use B send multiple messages (e..g, 1,2,3,4)
As user A open the chat with user B and observe the new message marker
As user B delete the first message sent (under the new message marker)

Expected: New message marker to change place to the 2nd new message sent

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Open the testing app as first user
Open any chat as user A (not the chat with user B)
As a use B send multiple messages (e..g, 1,2,3,4)
As user A open the chat with user B and observe the new message marker
As user B delete the first message sent (under the new message marker)

Expected: New message marker to change place to the 2nd new message sent

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

aweb.webm

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

iosweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

web-8.mp4

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

melvin-bot · 2024-05-29T11:11:14Z

@allroundexperts 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]

allroundexperts · 2024-05-30T17:26:35Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (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
- 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
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
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
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(theme.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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-06-10.at.3.47.20.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-06-10.at.3.45.56.AM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-06-10.at.3.44.15.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-06-10.at.3.42.33.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-06-10.at.3.38.35.AM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-06-10.at.3.40.36.AM.mov

allroundexperts · 2024-06-01T20:24:06Z

BUG

Unread marker disappears after the second message is deleted.

Screen.Recording.2024-06-02.at.1.21.21.AM.mov

dominictb · 2024-06-03T11:10:57Z

on my way :<

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

dominictb · 2024-06-03T12:28:49Z

@allroundexperts fixed in the latest commit

allroundexperts · 2024-06-04T20:10:17Z

Not able to test this currently because the API seems to be super slow and new messages aren't showing up. Will check back tomorrow.

dominictb · 2024-06-07T08:36:17Z

@situchan please help review again.

allroundexperts · 2024-06-09T22:38:00Z

@dominictb The above issue is still not fixed. Please make sure to test it and post a video of it working. TY!

Screen.Recording.2024-06-10.at.3.36.22.AM.mov

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

dominictb · 2024-06-10T00:39:44Z

@allroundexperts should be alright now. Seems like I pushed the wrong version up during rebase.

web8.mp4

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

dominictb · 2024-06-11T16:54:45Z

@allroundexperts do you think you can review this soon?

allroundexperts

Works good. Thank you!

arosiclair · 2024-06-17T13:41:24Z

src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx

@@ -490,21 +492,37 @@ function ReportActionsList({
        return ReportUtils.isExpenseReport(report) || ReportUtils.isIOUReport(report);
    }, [parentReportAction, report, sortedVisibleReportActions]);

+    // storing the last read time used to render the unread marker
+    const markerLastReadTimeRef = useRef<string | undefined>();


Do we really need to save the lastReadTime in a ref twice? It is already being saved here:

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsList.tsx

Line 198 in b7f75ef

const lastReadTimeRef = useRef(report.lastReadTime);

@arosiclair in my proposal #41935 (comment) it should have been explained clearly. In short, the original issue here is because the lastReadTimeRef is tied tightly with report.lastReadTime, so in case we re-calculate the unread marker, the lastReadTimeRef has been updated with report.lastReadTime value, causing the unread marker to disappear.

My main solution is that we will persist another lastReadTimeRef, called markerLastReadTimeRef which is tied to the currentUnreadMarker, i.e: it will be set with lastReadTimeRef.current if the unread marker first appears during calculation (changing from undefined -> defined value), and it shouldn't change its own value if the unread marker still exists in the screen. We'll clear the markerLastReadTimeRef if the unread marker disappears from the screen (changing from defined value -> undefined/null)

Hope that's clear!

so in case we re-calculate the unread marker, the lastReadTimeRef has been updated with report.lastReadTime value, causing the unread marker to disappear.

Where exactly is this happening? Is there a way we can prevent that from happening? From what I understand, the marker time should only change when the user marks a message as unread. So any other change would be unintended.

Let's try fixing the original lastReadTimeRef before adding another one since this functionality is already confusing and complex as it is.

@arosiclair as explained in my proposal as well as here, the lastReadTimeRef.current has already been set to the report.lastReadTime the first time the unread marker is calculated, and it stays the same after that (or changes if the report.lastReadTime changes). Hence, we couldn't use lastReadTimeRef to re-calc the marker in case the sortedVisibleReportActions changes.

(And you already approved my proposal 😅 )

To be clear, I hired you for the job but your proposal was not fully satisfactory. Please work with me to get this PR in a better place.

I'm asking these questions again, please answer them directly: When the message is deleted, where exactly is the lastReadTimeRef being cleared? Is there a way we can prevent that from happening?

If the answer is yes (I believe it is), then we shouldn't need to save the time for the marker twice. Instead we can just fix the issue where lastReadTimeRef is being cleared when it shouldn't be.

When the message is deleted, where exactly is the lastReadTimeRef being cleared?

The lastReadTimeRef is tied to the report.lastReadTime in here. The thing is, when you open a report, the unread marker will be calculated using the old report.lastReadTime (which is saved in lastReadTimeRef.current) in here. However, after a short while, the OpenReport API (see the image below) has updated the report.lastReadTime to a new timestamp (which is larger than the last message timestamp).

However, since the unread marker has already been set, in here the calculateUnreadMarker function will still render the unread marker. Now when a message associated with the unread marker is deleted, we face 2 issues:

The shouldDisplayNewMarker here is trying to compare the message with the outdated currentUnreadMarker (which associated message has been deleted).

Even if we fix the (1) issue, we couldn't use lastReadTimeRef.current to calculate new marker since the report.lastReadTime has been updated to a timestamp larger than the latest message timestamp as mentioned above

Is there a way we can prevent that from happening?

We'll still need a FE change to fix (1)

For (2) either we can fix the report.lastReadTime in the OpenReport API (which I think this involves lots of complication, as report.lastReadTime is used elsewhere, e.g: showing the unread status of the report in LHN), or we can employ the solution in this PR (which is fully FE, more simple and elegant which doesn't touch the report.lastReadTime value)

@arosiclair hope that's clear enough for you!

Thanks for the explanation. I took a closer look at this component and realized it needs a bit of a refactor to fix this issue properly and I can't really communicate that through PR comments. I'm going to merge your changes since they work and are covered with tests but I'm also going to make a follow up issue to clean this up.

OSBotify · 2024-06-20T14:52:16Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2024-06-21T21:43:13Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 9.0.1-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

Julesssss · 2024-06-24T08:34:51Z

Hey, I think this introduced a regression here. As we have a lot of blockers I'll not yet revert this but this will need to be looked at quite quickly.

OSBotify · 2024-06-25T19:43:50Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.0.1-19 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

dominictb added 2 commits May 29, 2024 16:02

fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted

6e8dc5d

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

fix: lint

844e6bf

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

dominictb marked this pull request as ready for review May 29, 2024 11:11

dominictb requested a review from a team as a code owner May 29, 2024 11:11

melvin-bot bot requested review from allroundexperts and removed request for a team May 29, 2024 11:11

fix: set the unread marker logic

88f5d9d

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

fix: prettier

6e1cb4f

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

dominictb force-pushed the fix/41935 branch from 03a3327 to 6e1cb4f Compare June 10, 2024 00:35

Merge branch 'main' into fix/41935

5941b95

dominictb added 3 commits June 10, 2024 11:18

fix: move the set markerLastReadTime outside the loop func

cc42221

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

chore: add unit test

fbad958

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

fix: update lint for test

b7f75ef

Signed-off-by: dominictb <[email protected]>

allroundexperts approved these changes Jun 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from arosiclair June 12, 2024 08:29

arosiclair reviewed Jun 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

arosiclair approved these changes Jun 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

arosiclair merged commit f618a94 into Expensify:main Jun 20, 2024
24 of 25 checks passed

adamgrzybowski mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2024

Simplify the RootNavigator structure #42582

Merged

51 tasks

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-06-21 #44186

Closed

m-natarajan mentioned this pull request Jun 22, 2024

[$250] Chat - New green line remains above last message when user switch chat #44204

Closed

6 tasks

Julesssss mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2024

[CP Staging] Revert "fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted" #44247

Merged

Julesssss changed the title ~~fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted~~ [CP Staging] fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted Jun 24, 2024

Julesssss changed the title ~~[CP Staging] fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted~~ fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted Jun 24, 2024

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jun 25, 2024

[HOLD for Payment 2024-08-22][$250] Chat - Message marker disappears when the 2nd user deletes the first message #41935

Closed

6 tasks

dominictb deleted the fix/41935 branch July 11, 2024 16:41

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted #42742

fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted #42742

dominictb commented May 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented May 29, 2024

allroundexperts commented May 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts commented Jun 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dominictb commented Jun 3, 2024

dominictb commented Jun 3, 2024

allroundexperts commented Jun 4, 2024

dominictb commented Jun 7, 2024

allroundexperts commented Jun 9, 2024

dominictb commented Jun 10, 2024

dominictb commented Jun 11, 2024

allroundexperts left a comment

arosiclair Jun 17, 2024

dominictb Jun 17, 2024

arosiclair Jun 17, 2024

dominictb Jun 18, 2024

arosiclair Jun 18, 2024

dominictb Jun 19, 2024

dominictb Jun 19, 2024

arosiclair Jun 20, 2024

OSBotify commented Jun 20, 2024

OSBotify commented Jun 21, 2024

Julesssss commented Jun 24, 2024

OSBotify commented Jun 25, 2024

fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted #42742

fix: re-calc the marker when msgs are deleted #42742

Conversation

dominictb commented May 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented May 29, 2024

allroundexperts commented May 30, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

allroundexperts commented Jun 1, 2024 • edited Loading

dominictb commented Jun 3, 2024

dominictb commented Jun 3, 2024

allroundexperts commented Jun 4, 2024

dominictb commented Jun 7, 2024

allroundexperts commented Jun 9, 2024

dominictb commented Jun 10, 2024

dominictb commented Jun 11, 2024

allroundexperts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Jun 20, 2024

OSBotify commented Jun 21, 2024

Julesssss commented Jun 24, 2024

OSBotify commented Jun 25, 2024

dominictb commented May 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts commented May 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts commented Jun 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading