[HOLD for payment 2023-10-05] [$500] Web - Task avatar not correct when sharing it in workspace chat

[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. Create a new workspace.
2. Create a new task
3. Select the share destination as the workspace chat of the current account.

Expected Result:

The workspace icon at the bottom right should be correct

Actual Result:

The workspace icon at the bottom right is invalid and only gets updated after sending a message in the task report.

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: 1.3.62.0
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: Any additional supporting documentation

Screen.Recording.2023-08-27.at.7.40.40.PM.mov

Recording.4195.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @esh-g
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1693145642005219

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01e42a684a1fd73bba
• Upwork Job ID: 1699077008312233984
• Last Price Increase: 2023-09-19
• Automatic offers:
• Ollyws | Reviewer | 26767060
• esh-g | Contributor | 26767062
• esh-g | Reporter | 26767064

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @bfitzexpensify (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

[kbecciv]

Proposal by: @esh-g
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1693145642005219

Proposal

by @esh-g

Please re-state the problem we are trying to solve

Unavailable workspace avatar is seen as subscript of a task that is shared in the ownPolicyExpenseChat

What is the root cause of this?

The root cause is that the taskReport when created optimistically, does not possess a policyID but it is a child of a policyExpenseChat so the avatar of workspace is shown but since policyID is undefined, the avatar shown is of Unavailable Workspace starting with U.
We can see in the following snippet that we are specifically handling avatar cases for WorkspaceTaskReport:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.js

Lines 981 to 984 in 64ff471

	if (isWorkspaceTaskReport(report)) {
	const workspaceIcon = getWorkspaceIcon(report, policy);
	return [ownerIcon, workspaceIcon];
	}

What changes should be made in-order to fix this?

We should add policyID of the parent report while building optimistic data for taskReport here:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.js

Lines 2483 to 2496 in 64ff471

	function buildOptimisticTaskReport(ownerAccountID, assigneeAccountID = 0, parentReportID, title, description) {
	return {
	reportID: generateReportID(),
	reportName: title,
	description,
	ownerAccountID,
	participantAccountIDs: assigneeAccountID && assigneeAccountID !== ownerAccountID ? [assigneeAccountID] : [],
	managerID: assigneeAccountID,
	type: CONST.REPORT.TYPE.TASK,
	parentReportID,
	stateNum: CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.OPEN,
	statusNum: CONST.REPORT.STATUS.OPEN,
	};
	}

And this can be done by adding this line in the body of the function:

const policyID = lodashGet(allReports[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${parentReportID}`], 'policyID', CONST.POLICY.OWNER_EMAIL_FAKE);

Then we can just return policyID as well.
PS: Here I'm using CONST.POLICY.OWNER_EMAIL_FAKE instead of CONST.POLICY.OWNER_ACCOUNT_ID_FAKE even though it says policyID because I saw this being used in other places as well.

What other alternatives did you explore? (Optional)

• We can have the buildOptimisticTaskReport() function accept the policyID as an argument that can be passed while creating the task.

[bfitzexpensify]

Sending this external

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01e42a684a1fd73bba

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[bfitzexpensify]

@Ollyws looks like there's a proposal in #26572 (comment) for you to review when you get a chance - thanks!

[bfitzexpensify]

Just making a note to myself to check if this also solves https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1693280387243559 once this has been resolved

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[bfitzexpensify]

Bump to review #26572 (comment) @Ollyws - thank you!

[Ollyws]

Sorry for the delay, will review this asap.

[melvin-bot]

@Ollyws @bfitzexpensify this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[bfitzexpensify]

Another friendly bump on this one @Ollyws

[Ollyws]

@esh-g's alternative proposal looks good to me.
🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[esh-g]

PR is here: #27853 💫

[esh-g]

@Ollyws A duplicate issue was made by @lanitochka17 here: #27092 after the creation of this issue and they merged the PR before this

[esh-g]

@Ollyws What do you think we should do now?

[Ollyws]

@esh-g In this situation ours would usually be closed as their PR has been merged but let's wait for confirmation from @luacmartins

[esh-g]

@Ollyws @luacmartins I think a change can still be made to the solution applied currently, by setting the default value to CONST.POLICY.OWNER_EMAIL_FAKE instead of handing the case of policyID = undefined. I think this is how we handle the optimistic building of reports. Let me know what you think of this change as being more in line with the style of optimistic report building and if yes, we can merge the current PR for this issue as well.

[luacmartins]

@esh-g yes, let's make it consistent and use OWNER_EMAIL_FAKE

[esh-g]

@esh-g yes, let's make it consistent and use OWNER_EMAIL_FAKE

Great, I already have the changes in the PR @Ollyws

[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 @esh-g got assigned: 2023-09-19 23:53:04 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-09-25 02:57:29 UTC
• days elapsed: 3

On to the next one 🚀

[esh-g]

Is melvin bot correct? Shouldn't have today been the 3rd day? I got assigned on Thursday I think.. 🤔

[luacmartins]

I think so, I see the assignment on the 2023-09-20 7:52 UTC +8, which is the 2023-09-19 23:52 UTC

[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 1.3.74-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Added policyID to report while creating task #27853

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-10-05. 🎊

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:

• @Ollyws requires payment offer (Reviewer)
• @esh-g requires payment offer (Contributor)
• @esh-g requires payment offer (Contributor)

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:

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

[bfitzexpensify]

Moving this to daily so I see and action it on 10/5

[Ollyws]

This was just one tiny ammendment to a PR that fixed the issue as we were working on this one, so I don't think the checklist is necessary here.

[bfitzexpensify]

Agreed. OK, payments have all been finalised, so we're good to close this out - thanks everyone!