[HOLD for payment 2023-08-07] [$1000] Preferences- Notification toggle updating inconsistently on devices

[lanitochka17]

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:

Precondition - Login to the same account in Main device (Desktop) and secondary device (Web)

Offline test:

1. Open Desktop app
2. Open preferences (on Web & Desktop)
3. Click "Force offline" (on Desktop)
4. Click 3 times on Notifications toggle (On Desktop)
5. Click on "Force offline" toggle to go online (On Desktop)

Online test:

1. Open Desktop app
2. Open preferences (on Web & Desktop)
3. Click 2 times quickly on the Notifications toggle (On Desktop)
4. See that it updated correctly on web, but the desktop is now wrong

Expected Result:

Notifications toggle is synced on main and secondary device.

Actual Result:

Notifications toggle differs on main and secondary device. When user goes online on main device - notification toggle blinks on the secondary device but then goes back to the previous state which differs from the main device state.

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: 1.3.18-2

Reproducible in staging?: Yes

Reproducible in production?: Yes

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

https://platform.applause.com/services/links/v1/external/0875e549d85a3e7f06f3a10355369edfe2ef01dfd60007c73c53f56e5c845377

Screen.Recording.2023-05-29.at.3.33.21.AM.mov

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: Applause - Internal
Slack conversation:

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01240a84e969686e0b
• Upwork Job ID: 1662121552691892224
• Last Price Increase: 2023-06-09

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sakluger (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

[sakluger]

I was able to reproduce this bug. One other note is that after following the reproduction steps, I refreshed the secondary device, and it synced the notification setting back off to match the primary device.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01240a84e969686e0b

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[namhihi237]

Proposal

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

The notifications toggle is synced on a primary and secondary device.

What is the root cause of that problem?

####Offline test:
The issue here arises when the device is offline and requests are being queued into the persistedRequests array. When the device reestablishes an internet connection, these requests are retrieved and sent out in sequence. After each request is processed, it is removed from the array.

However, a problem occurs when the Notifications toggle is clicked three times, causing identical requests (number 1 and 3) to be queued into the persistedRequests array. Upon processing, the function PersistedRequests.remove(requestToProcess); is invoked, which results in the removal of both request 1 and 3 due to their similarity. Consequently, we lose one request in the process.

App/src/libs/actions/PersistedRequests.js

Lines 34 to 37 in 12d2f3c

	function remove(requestToRemove) {
	persistedRequests = _.reject(persistedRequests, (persistedRequest) => _.isEqual(persistedRequest, requestToRemove));
	Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.PERSISTED_REQUESTS, persistedRequests);
	}

####Onlie test:
The issue happens when clicking a second time while the first API is not finished.
when briefly pressing the switch, the toggleAction method is called twice at almost the same time. toggleAction then calls props.onToggle, and the result is two API calls made at roughly the same time.
Then these two function calls are queued for execution. If the time between the two calls is too short, the second toggleAction may be executed before the props.onToggle from the first call completes.

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

####Offline test:
Instead of deleting all matching requests, you can modify your removal function to delete only the first matching request. This ensures that if there are duplicate requests in the persistedRequests array, only the one currently being processed gets deleted.

function remove(requestToRemove) {
   const requests = [...persistedRequest]
    const index = _.findIndex(persistedRequests, (requests) => _.isEqual(persistedRequest, requestToRemove));
    if (index !== -1) {
        requests.splice(index, 1);
    }
    persistedRequest = requests
    Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.PERSISTED_REQUESTS, requests);
}

Result:

Screen.Recording.2023-05-28.at.01.20.39.mp4

####Oneline test:
src/components/Switch.js

import { debounce } from 'lodash';

 // this.toggleAction = this.toggleAction.bind(this);
 this.toggleAction = debounce(this.toggleAction.bind(this), 500);

Result:

Screen.Recording.2023-05-30.at.00.38.12.mov

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A

[allroundexperts]

@danieldoglas For the offline case as mentioned in this issue, @namhihi237's proposal has the correct root cause and solves the problem in a decent manner as well. However, while testing, I found out that for online mode, if you click the toggle quickly twice, the toggle on the desktop (testing device) goes out of sync.

Screen.Recording.2023-05-29.at.3.33.21.AM.mov

Do we want to handle the above bug together with this one? If no, then @namhihi237's proposal works good.

[danieldoglas]

That root cause makes sense to me, but I'm curious if this change won't break anything else - We probably remove all of them for a reason. cc @marcaaron, can you confirm?

If that's the case, we might need to create a new property in the queue object to confirm it is a unique request, and only delete the first if it is.

[danieldoglas]

@allroundexperts for the error you found, can you confirm if it's a concurrency error? IMO the second device should have received all 3 pusher updates, but it might be out of order. If that's the case, I'm not sure we can fix it the way our pusher updates work today.

[allroundexperts]

@allroundexperts for the error you found, can you confirm if it's a concurrency error? IMO the second device should have received all 3 pusher updates, but it might be out of order. If that's the case, I'm not sure we can fix it the way our pusher updates work today.

@danieldoglas The second device behaves correctly and all events are received in correct order there. It's just the main device on which the toggle gets set incorrectly.

[danieldoglas]

Oh no, I thought you had clicked 3 times. Yeah, I think we should fix it here as well.

[allroundexperts]

Oh no, I thought you had clicked 3 times. Yeah, I think we should fix it here as well.

Awesome. Can you update the reproduction steps to include this as well?

[danieldoglas]

done.

[namhihi237]

Hi @allroundexperts , I just checked the additional issue with the online, the issue happens when clicking a second time while the first API is not finished. I think we can use Debounce for this. What do you think?

[allroundexperts]

Hi @allroundexperts , I just checked the additional issue with the online, the issue happens when clicking a second time while the first API is not finished. I think we can use Debounce for this. What do you think?

@namhihi237 Can you please update your proposal?

[namhihi237]

Yes, @allroundexperts , I updated (#19640 (comment))

[sakluger]

Hey @allroundexperts mind taking another look?

[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:

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

[melvin-bot]

Based on my calculations, the pull request did not get merged within 3 working days of assignment. Please, check out my computations here:

• when @namhihi237 got assigned: 2023-07-11 18:35:13 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-07-27 22:16:04 UTC
• days elapsed: 12

On to the next one 🚀

[puneetlath]

Reminder when paying: this issue had a regression.

[allroundexperts]

The checklist for this bug is not needed here in my opinion. This was an issue since we implemented the http requests queue.

[greg-schroeder]

Sounds good. Holding for payment and we can close, then.

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.47-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• remove first request #23562

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-08-07. 🎊

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

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

• @allroundexperts does not require payment (Eligable for Manual Requests)
• @namhihi237 requires payment

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:

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

[greg-schroeder]

Not overdue

[greg-schroeder]

Will process today as we've reached new payment date

[greg-schroeder]

The original upwork job is closed because it's so old, so I'll have to create a new one

[greg-schroeder]

Issue Participants:

Issue reported by: Applause - Internal
Contributor: @namhihi237
C+: @allroundexperts

Was this issue merged in time to be eligible for the speed bonus? ❌
Were their any regressions? ✅

Payment summary:

Contributor: @namhihi237 - $500
C+: @allroundexperts - $500

[greg-schroeder]

Payments made in Upwork. Just need @JmillsExpensify to confirm payment for C+ and then we can close as checklist isn't required.

[greg-schroeder]

Pending newdot payment

[greg-schroeder]

Same as above

[JmillsExpensify]

Reviewed the details for @allroundexperts. Approved for payment in NewDot based on the BZ payment summary above.