[HOLD for payment 2024-10-22] [$250] mWeb - Chat - The welcome group message doesn't update when a user is removed

[lanitochka17]

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

Issue found when executing PR #49618

Action Performed:

1. FAB > start chat
2. Select a few members and create a group chat
3. Press on members and remove one user from the group
4. Navigate to the group chat

Expected Result:

The removed user is not displayed in the welcome group message

Actual Result:

The removed user is still displayed in the welcome group message

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

Bug6618968_1727571690696.49618-mWeb.1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021841455012379899950
• Upwork Job ID: 1841455012379899950
• Last Price Increase: 2024-10-02
• Automatic offers:
• alitoshmatov | Reviewer | 104310823

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @sonialiap

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sonialiap (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.

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

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

The group welcome text doesn't immediately update its members/participant.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we remove participant from the group, we don't immediately remove it from participants, but rather put it in pendingChatMembers list. After the request is success, the member will be removed.

Currently, we show the list of the participants from the participants without filtering the pending delete members.

App/src/components/ReportWelcomeText.tsx

Line 43 in e84dab7

const participantAccountIDs = ReportUtils.getParticipantsAccountIDsForDisplay(report);

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 2110 to 2112 in e84dab7

	function getParticipantsAccountIDsForDisplay(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, shouldExcludeHidden = false, shouldExcludeDeleted = false): number[] {
	const reportParticipants = report?.participants ?? {};
	let participantsEntries = Object.entries(reportParticipants);

So, the text will still shows the pending delete member for a while.

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

To not show the deleted member, we need to pass shouldExcludeDeleted as true.

const participantAccountIDs = ReportUtils.getParticipantsAccountIDsForDisplay(report, undefined, true);

I think we can make the default to true, but not sure why we made it false.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021841455012379899950

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @alitoshmatov (External)

[alitoshmatov]

@bernhardoj Thank you for your proposal, your RCA is correct. Looks like fairly simple solution.

We can go with @bernhardoj 's proposal

C+ reviewed 🎀 👀 🎀

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @stitesExpensify, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @alitoshmatov 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[bernhardoj]

PR is ready

cc: @alitoshmatov

[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 9.0.48-2 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix the welcome group message doesn't update when a user is removed #50370

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-10-22. 🎊

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

• @bernhardoj requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @alitoshmatov requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)

[melvin-bot]

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:

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

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @sonialiap is eligible for the Bug assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @strepanier03 (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.

[sonialiap]

I'm OOO on the 22nd so adding a buddy to make payment

Payment summary:

• @bernhardoj $250 please request in ND
• @alitoshmatov $250 upwork - please complete the checklist - paid

[bernhardoj]

Requested in ND.

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @bernhardoj

[alitoshmatov]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: update beginningOfChatHistory translation #49919
• 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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/49919/files#r1812414693
• 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: No need
• Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Straightforward fix, no need

[alitoshmatov]

@JmillsExpensify Checklist done

[sonialiap]

@alitoshmatov thanks! Payment completed ✔️

[tgolen]

@sonialiap can you please copy the checklist answers from @alitoshmatov into the checklist comment above and then complete your checklist item?

[sonialiap]

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:

• [@alitoshmatov] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: update beginningOfChatHistory translation #49919
• [@alitoshmatov] 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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/49919/files#r1812414693
• [@alitoshmatov] 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: No need
• [@alitoshmatov] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.: Straightforward fix, no need
• [@alitoshmatov] 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. : no need for regression test
• [@sonialiap] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: no need for regression test