[HOLD for payment 2023-08-28] Initiating a chat with secondary login with which already have a DM shows weird error

[kavimuru]

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. Account B has already chat with Account A
2. Account A has added a phone number as secondary login
3. Log in to Account B
4. Search for Account A's secondary login phone number and select to chat

Expected Result:

User should be able to chat with a secondary login

Actual Result:

Report no longer exists error message appears

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: 1.2.
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: y
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:

az_recorder_20230227_120957.1.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @quinthar
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1675355583321969

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017b41276da6b57d22
• Upwork Job ID: 1640418840882262016
• Last Price Increase: 2023-03-27

[MelvinBot]

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

[MelvinBot]

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

[MelvinBot]

@puneetlath Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[puneetlath]

Chatting about the ideal behavior here: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1677794822257989?thread_ts=1675355583.321969&cid=C049HHMV9SM

[puneetlath]

Behavior has been agreed on. Starting looking into the code.

[MelvinBot]

@puneetlath this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to a solution? Let's make sure we're treating this as a top priority. Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[MelvinBot]

@puneetlath Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[puneetlath]

Haven't had a chance to dig into this too much with ECX, but hope to later this week.

[puneetlath]

Back from ECX. Will dive into this now.

[MelvinBot]

@puneetlath this issue is now 3 weeks old. There is one more week left before this issue breaks WAQ. What needs to happen to get a PR in review this week? Please create a thread in #expensify-open-source to discuss. Thanks!

[MelvinBot]

@puneetlath Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[MelvinBot]

@puneetlath this issue is now 4 weeks old and preventing us from maintaining WAQ. This should now be your highest priority. Please post below what your plan is to get a PR in review ASAP. Thanks!

[MelvinBot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~017b41276da6b57d22

[MelvinBot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor Plus for review of internal employee PR - @s77rt (Internal)

[pasyukevich]

PR is ready for review

[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 1.3.55-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: replace new report with preexisting #24320

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-08-28. 🎊

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 n/a
• Contributor that fixed the issue n/a
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR @mananjadhav

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

• @mananjadhav does not require payment (Eligible for Manual Requests)
• @pasyukevich does not require payment (Contractor)

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:

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

[puneetlath]

I think we can skip the checklist on this one. This is almost more of a new feature than a bug.

[mananjadhav]

Agreed. Would the regression test be added for this @puneetlath ?

[puneetlath]

That's a good idea. Can you propose one?

[mananjadhav]

I was wondering if the test steps from PR are good?

[mananjadhav]

@puneetlath Can you post the payout summary here?

[puneetlath]

Payment summary:

• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR @mananjadhav $1000 (to be paid via NewDot)

@mananjadhav please ping me here once you've opened the manual request in NewDot.

[mananjadhav]

@puneetlath I've raised the payout request on NewDot.

[JmillsExpensify]

Reviewed the details for @mananjadhav. $1,000 approved for payment via NewDot based on BZ summary.

[mananjadhav]

@puneetlath I think we're good to close this one out?

[puneetlath]

Yep, all good here. Thanks everyone!