DeleteComment conflict resolver #50919

gedu · 2024-10-16T15:46:26Z

Details

Any request with command AddXXX that I find, I will try to not perform a request, given that the backend doesn't have information about it.
If there is no AddXXX or it is already processing, I will delete any actions between that processing/existing comment and the DeleteComment. The server just need to delete it and not perform any kind of update like (UpdateComment, AddEmojiReaction, etc)
There is a special case, when the comment will be use to create a thread (an OpenReport is executed) in that case, the safer solution is to send all the requests as planned instead of deleting, given that DeleteComment is by reportActionsID and the logic could be complicated when multiple random actions happens in a thread.

Fixed Issues

$ #50074
PROPOSAL: -

Tests

DeleteComment request:

Send a message (wait for this message to success)
Go to Offline
Edit the message
Add emoji reaction
Remove emoji reaction
Delete the message
Go to online
Just the DeleteComment request should be send
Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

No requests:

Go to offline
send a message
edit the message
add a emoji reaction
delete the message
Go to online
No requests should be sent

Threads

Go to offline
Send a message
create a thread
delete that message
Go to online
All the request must be sent

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

deleteComment_chrome.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-10-16T15:46:31Z

@shubham1206agra 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]

mountiny · 2024-10-17T17:02:23Z

@shubham1206agra let us know what is your eta for this review? thanks!

gedu · 2024-10-21T09:33:52Z

@shubham1206agra any news?

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/Report.ts # src/libs/actions/RequestConflictUtils.ts # tests/actions/ReportTest.ts # tests/unit/RequestConflictUtilsTest.ts

mountiny · 2024-10-22T02:33:27Z

I think Shubham is going to be busy with some other projects now so in sake of focus I will try to reassign

c3024 · 2024-10-22T05:09:19Z

I found a small problem. Until we process the response, we do not remove the request from PersistentRequests. So, if a request is made, but before the response is received, the client can go offline. So, the request is not removed from PersistentRequests.

So,

Client makes an AddXXX request.
But, before receiving the response for this request, it goes offline.
Now, we do a DeleteXXX action. This DeleteXXX request removes the AddXXX and itself from PersistedRequests.
But, backend receives the request made in step 1 and includes the successful changes in the ReconnectApp when the client goes back online.
But, the DeleteXXX request is lost so request for deleting the comment is not sent to backend.

Here is a video with 8kbps download speed

deleteRequestLost.mp4

I think we should consider not removing a DeleteXXX request if a corresponding Add/Update requests were already tried by the client.

gedu · 2024-10-23T07:19:53Z

Looking into that, seems that when you go offline a multiple request is added, ReconnectApp, and the conflict resolution just get one item:

Just one ReconnectApp which is fine, so it replace it
But when the DeleteCommand is push, the conflict resolution gets the queue with the AddComment in it

(as you can see happens after the reconnect so it shouldn't be there, that's why DeleteComment delete itself)

gedu · 2024-10-23T10:03:16Z

@mountiny @c3024 this is a bug that is happening on main too, I just checked and it sends duplicated AddComment requests.

My code is preventing the duplicated request to be sent, so It can't delete the original because as stated the DeleteComment deletes itself.

Seems something really weird, seems that the ReportActionCompose is adding back the last text, and submitting it.
What should I do? try to fix it or we will create a new issue for this?

c3024 · 2024-10-23T10:24:21Z

I don't think calling AddComment again is a bug.

When a client makes a write request, unless it receives a response it cannot know that the request is successful.

In this case, the first AddComment request succesfully reached backend. But, sometimes the request can also not reach backend. So, it should not be removed from PersistedRequests just after client making the request but should be removed only after receiving the response here.

App/src/libs/Network/SequentialQueue.ts

Line 99 in f251dbc

PersistedRequests.remove(requestToProcess);

When the client fails to stay online till the response returns, this ongoing request, AddComment here, is added back to PersistedRequests.

App/src/libs/Network/SequentialQueue.ts

Line 111 in f251dbc

PersistedRequests.rollbackOngoingRequest();

If client sends the AddComment again, I think backend has some way to understand that this is a duplicate request that was already processed. It must not be doing anything.

Also, when we go online, ReconnectApp sends back the latest update which in this case includes the first successful AddComment also, so the message appears again on the screen.

So, I think if we can know that client tried an AddXXX request somehow, we should not remove the DeleteXXX request corresponding to the AddXXX action in this case because AddXXX might have been successful on the backend. So, we should not delete the DeleteXXX request and should send this request to backend.

gedu · 2024-10-23T10:42:12Z

Ok, will take a look at that case

gedu · 2024-10-23T13:34:15Z

ok, I will add inside of RequestConflictResolver type a isRollbacked field. I'm testing and trying to create some tests

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/Report.ts # src/libs/actions/RequestConflictUtils.ts # tests/actions/ReportTest.ts # tests/unit/RequestConflictUtilsTest.ts

gedu · 2024-10-24T09:07:45Z

@c3024 PR updated

c3024 · 2024-10-24T16:14:58Z

Offline behaviour with "Force offline" is different for Threads Test.

forceOffline.mp4

This should not be a problem for production because that option does not exist in production but QA will see a different result here for the test on staging.

c3024 · 2024-10-25T06:20:46Z

@gedu, can you please check the above comment? I wonder why "Force offline" is behaving differently from setting offline in Dev Tools or disconnecting network on device settings level.

gedu · 2024-10-25T10:56:23Z

@c3024 yes, taking a look now

gedu · 2024-10-25T13:23:54Z

@c3024 Fix it and added a test to cover that case

c3024 · 2024-10-26T14:32:19Z

This issue still remains on iOS Safari.

deleteThreadOnMain.mp4

deleteThreadOnThisBranch.mp4

gedu · 2024-10-28T10:42:27Z

Looking into, I'm seeing that on web (chrome) I have the parentReportActionID which I use to know that a thread is open

but on mobile safari it doesn't have it

gedu · 2024-10-28T12:17:53Z

Seems that OpenReport is called multiple times on mobile, from ReportScreen. The extras calls don't have the parentReportActionID

gedu · 2024-10-28T14:34:00Z

Updated @c3024 can you review it?
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/33bb01af-e0e1-4a35-92a1-49337b9630d7

src/libs/actions/RequestConflictUtils.ts

c3024 · 2024-10-22T04:09:34Z

src/libs/Network/SequentialQueue.ts

@@ -96,15 +96,15 @@ function process(): Promise<void> {
                pause();
            }

-            PersistedRequests.remove(requestToProcess);
+            PersistedRequests.endRequestAndRemoveFromQueue(requestToProcess);


Any reason for changing this? I see that remove function has no changes.

Because it was doing more than just remove, I need to provide more clarity on what it was actually doing to avoid any misuse.

c3024 · 2024-10-29T07:04:28Z

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

addAndroid.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

addAndroidmWeb-compressed.mp4

iOS: Native

addiOS.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

addiOSmWeb1.mp4

addiOSmWeb2.mp4

addiOSmWeb3.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

addChrome.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

addDesktop.mp4

c3024

LGTM!

gedu · 2024-10-30T16:52:50Z

Closing in favor of: #51422, all tests cases moved into it.

@mountiny

gedu added 3 commits October 15, 2024 16:54

Adding conflict resolver for delete comment

c503b78

Merge branch 'main' into gedu/delete_comment_conflict_resolver

db367ac

Adding case for OpenReport when creating a thread

ecb7aaa

gedu requested a review from a team as a code owner October 16, 2024 15:46

melvin-bot bot requested review from shubham1206agra and removed request for a team October 16, 2024 15:46

gedu mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-11-11] [HOLD for payment 2024-11-05] [$250] De-dupe AddComment, EditComment, and DeleteComment requests #50074

Closed

Merge branch 'main' into gedu/delete_comment_conflict_resolver

b26e6cd

gedu force-pushed the gedu/delete_comment_conflict_resolver branch from cc4fb33 to b26e6cd Compare October 16, 2024 18:35

mountiny assigned gedu Oct 17, 2024

gedu added 2 commits October 21, 2024 13:04

Merge branch 'main' into gedu/delete_comment_conflict_resolver

aa0b105

Merge branch 'main' into gedu/delete_comment_conflict_resolver

06cdcf9

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/Report.ts # src/libs/actions/RequestConflictUtils.ts # tests/actions/ReportTest.ts # tests/unit/RequestConflictUtilsTest.ts

mountiny requested review from c3024 and removed request for shubham1206agra October 22, 2024 02:34

gedu added 2 commits October 23, 2024 19:41

Add new field to know if a request was rollbacked

c93b9b4

Merge branch 'main' into gedu/delete_comment_conflict_resolver

ca92e8b

# Conflicts: # src/libs/actions/Report.ts # src/libs/actions/RequestConflictUtils.ts # tests/actions/ReportTest.ts # tests/unit/RequestConflictUtilsTest.ts

gedu mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2024

Add comment text update by edit comment #51422

Merged

50 tasks

Fixed wrong indexing

abd5651

Fixed DeleteComment on future Thread

3682b5c

c3024 reviewed Oct 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

c3024 approved these changes Oct 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from mountiny October 29, 2024 07:15

Updated var name

da7a4da

gedu closed this Oct 30, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

DeleteComment conflict resolver #50919

DeleteComment conflict resolver #50919

gedu commented Oct 16, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 16, 2024

mountiny commented Oct 17, 2024

gedu commented Oct 21, 2024

mountiny commented Oct 22, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

gedu commented Oct 23, 2024

gedu commented Oct 23, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 23, 2024

gedu commented Oct 23, 2024

gedu commented Oct 23, 2024

gedu commented Oct 24, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 24, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 25, 2024

gedu commented Oct 25, 2024

gedu commented Oct 25, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 26, 2024

gedu commented Oct 28, 2024

gedu commented Oct 28, 2024

gedu commented Oct 28, 2024

c3024 Oct 22, 2024

gedu Oct 29, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

c3024 left a comment

gedu commented Oct 30, 2024

DeleteComment conflict resolver #50919

DeleteComment conflict resolver #50919

Conversation

gedu commented Oct 16, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 16, 2024

mountiny commented Oct 17, 2024

gedu commented Oct 21, 2024

mountiny commented Oct 22, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 22, 2024 • edited Loading

gedu commented Oct 23, 2024

gedu commented Oct 23, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 23, 2024

gedu commented Oct 23, 2024

gedu commented Oct 23, 2024

gedu commented Oct 24, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 24, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 25, 2024

gedu commented Oct 25, 2024

gedu commented Oct 25, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 26, 2024

gedu commented Oct 28, 2024

gedu commented Oct 28, 2024

gedu commented Oct 28, 2024

c3024 Oct 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gedu Oct 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

c3024 commented Oct 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

c3024 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gedu commented Oct 30, 2024

c3024 commented Oct 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

c3024 commented Oct 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading