[HOLD for payment 2023-07-26] [$1000] Web - Order of task notification messages incorrect when back online

[kbecciv]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Action Performed:

1. Open any report
2. Create a task
3. Setting => Preferences => Force offline
4. Click Mark as done
5. Click three dot => mark as incomplete
6. Click three dot => Cancel
7. Setting => Preferences => Toggle Force Offline => Close
8. Observe the message order:completed task => reopened task => canceled task
9. Reload page: Observe the message order: cancel task => task completed => task reopened

Expected Result:

After reload page the message order is correct: completed task => reopened task => canceled task

Actual Result:

After reload page message order is not correct

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android / native
• Android / Chrome
• iOS / native
• iOS / Safari
• MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• MacOS / Desktop

Version Number: 1.3.28-4

Reproducible in staging?: n/a

Reproducible in production?: n/a

If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:

Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):

Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856

Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

Screen.Recording.2023-06-16.at.11.17.58.mov

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: @namhihi237

Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1686889606135589

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017368db113f47cd42
• Upwork Job ID: 1672010591582208000
• Last Price Increase: 2023-06-22

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @lschurr (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[lschurr]

I was able to reproduce:

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017368db113f47cd42

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @lschurr is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

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

[hoangzinh]

Proposal

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

Web - Order of task notification messages incorrect when back online

What is the root cause of that problem?

I think it's both BE + FE issue. In BE, It doesn't pick up the optimisticReportActionID but create a new reportAction with different actionName (optimistic build with actionName TASKCANCELED and BE returns a new reportAction with TASKCANCELLED (double L))

For example:

If we were in offline then online, because BE creates new reportAction, the optimisticReportAction in FE is not updated create field => According to our sort reportActions algorithm, it might be displayed first.

Moreover, although we receive the reportAction that created in BE side above but It won't be shown because its actionName (TASKCANCELLED) is not in FE actionName whitelist here. It leads to another issue that in assignee side, they can't see the cancel task message:

Example in what assignee see:

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

I think we need to do 2 things both FE & BE:

• BE needs to create reportAction with the ID in the request params of CancelTask API instead of create new reportAction ID
• We should set actionType of task cancelled to either TASKCANCELED or TASKCANCELLED in both FE & BE. I think it should be TASKCANCELLED. If we're all agree. We update in FE side here, it should be TASKCANCELLED (also change the const name)

[lschurr]

Could you review this proposal @rushatgabhane?

[rushatgabhane]

I need help for this issue. I think it could be closed or handled internally because

1. Tasks are being refactored.
2. The backend changes can only be done by someone internal working on the Tasks refactor 😅

cc: @hayata-suenaga could you please help us with next steps maybe

[hayata-suenaga]

@thienlnam can you check if this issue can be fixed with the ongoing refactoring? 🙇

[hoangzinh]

@rushatgabhane how do you think about my suggestion for FE change? Do you think it's a typo in FE? Thanks

[thienlnam]

This is not being worked on as part of the refactor - great catch that it's not using the provided optimistic reportActionID though!

[lschurr]

Should this be closed @thienlnam?

[thienlnam]

Nope, there are a couple pieces to this that will require internal changes as well as possible external changes

[hayata-suenaga]

Let's make this internal and if App change is required, we can create another issue for that.

[melvin-bot]

📣 @namhihi237 We're missing your Upwork ID to automatically send you an offer for the Reporter role.
Once you apply to the Upwork job, your Upwork ID will be stored and you will be automatically hired for future jobs!

[namhihi237]

@thienlnam , Not related to this issue but I want to check why my upwork doesn't automatically send offers even though I have been hired several times before.

[thienlnam]

@namhihi237 DM me the email you used to sign up and I can work on figuring out why

[namhihi237]

Applied for the job.

[hoangzinh]

@rushatgabhane @thienlnam Thanks for accepting my proposal. The PR is ready #22755. Please help me to review it. Thanks

[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 1.3.42-26 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix Task cancelled message is not showing #22755

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-07-26. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[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:

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

[lschurr]

Payout summary:

• Issue reporter: @namhihi237 $250
• Contributor: @hoangzinh $1000
• C+: @rushatgabhane $1000

@namhihi237 and @hoangzinh will be paid in Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017368db113f47cd42
@rushatgabhane please request payment via ND if you haven't already

[lschurr]

Also @rushatgabhane could you work on the checklist? #21314 (comment)

[lschurr]

Paid @namhihi237 and @hoangzinh

We can close once you are able to work through the checklist @rushatgabhane

[lschurr]

Bump @rushatgabhane

[lschurr]

Bumped @rushatgabhane in Slack

[rushatgabhane]

1. The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: CancelTask frontend #18747

2. 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/18747/files#r1281485361

3. 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: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1690960660121509

4. Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. No

5. 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 - N.A.

[rushatgabhane]

created a manual request https://staging.new.expensify.com/r/6448305783764792

[lschurr]

Great thanks! Going to close this one out.

[JmillsExpensify]

Reviewed details for @rushatgabhane. These details are accurate based on summary from Business Reviewer and are now approved for payment in NewDot.