[HOLD for payment 2023-11-30] [$500] Room - Inconsistency in room member list when it is created offline and after returning online

[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!

---

Version Number: 1.3.99-0
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
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

Precondition: Have a workspace with a few members

1. Go offline
2. Click + > New chat > Room
3. Create a room under the workspace in the precondition and set the visibility to Workspace
4. Click on the room header > Members
5. Go online

Expected Result:

Member list in the room when created offline should only show the admin themselves

Actual Result:

Member list in the room when created offline shows all the workspace members. It shows only the admin after returning online

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

Bug6277612_1700057722582.20231115_135040.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0124f1a665a95a6c6e
• Upwork Job ID: 1724807139956674560
• Last Price Increase: 2023-11-15
• Automatic offers:
• dukenv0307 | Contributor | 27723102

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0124f1a665a95a6c6e

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @kadiealexander (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

[melvin-bot]

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

[dukenv0307]

Proposal

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

Inconsistency in the room member list when it is created offline and after returning online

What is the root cause of that problem?

When we create a room with visibility as restricted, we add participants in optimistic data is the member list of the workspace. After going online, BE returns the data with participants of this room as only current user.

App/src/libs/actions/Report.js

Line 1550 in 0151ae3

const members = visibility === CONST.REPORT.VISIBILITY.RESTRICTED ? policyMembersAccountIDs : [];

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

1. If the expected is only the current user is participant when we create a new room, we can fix in FE to update the participant of optimistic data as the current user.

App/src/libs/actions/Report.js

Line 1550 in 0151ae3

const members = visibility === CONST.REPORT.VISIBILITY.RESTRICTED ? policyMembersAccountIDs : [];

2. If not we should fix in BE to return the correct participant.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[parasharrajat]

I am not also not sure here about who should be participants. Going to ask on Slack https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1700077413329419

[parasharrajat]

So there are more updates on Slack and it seems that only user who created should be the member of the room when created. Other users will have to join it.

In that case, @dukenv0307's proposal to update the FE makes sense.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[chiragsalian]

Proposal LGTM, feel free to create the PR @dukenv0307

[melvin-bot]

📣 @parasharrajat Please request via NewDot manual requests for the Reviewer role ($500)

[melvin-bot]

📣 @dukenv0307 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[dukenv0307]

@parasharrajat The 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 1.4.2-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix optimistic members of restricted room #31526

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-11-30. 🎊

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:

• @parasharrajat does not require payment (Eligible for Manual Requests)
• @dukenv0307 requires payment offer (Contributor)

[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:

• [@parasharrajat] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Fix AddWorkspaceRoom's optimistic participant data for non-restricted rooms #22385
• [@parasharrajat] 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/22385/files#r1405761078
• [@parasharrajat] 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: Not required. This was missed during refactoring.
• [@parasharrajat] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@parasharrajat] 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.
• [@kadiealexander] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/340186

[parasharrajat]

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:

• [@parasharrajat] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Fix AddWorkspaceRoom's optimistic participant data for non-restricted rooms #22385
• [@parasharrajat] 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/22385/files#r1405761078
• [@parasharrajat] 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: Not required. This was missed during refactoring.
• [@parasharrajat] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. Yes
• [@parasharrajat] 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.

Regression Test Steps

1. Go offline
2. Create a restricted room
3. Click on the header on the newly created room > Open Members.
4. Verify that the member list has only one member is the current user who created the room.
5. Go online
6. Verify that the member list is the same as in offline mode.

Do you agree 👍 or 👎 ?

[chiragsalian]

regression test LGTM 👍

[kadiealexander]

Nice! Payouts due:

• Contributor: $500 @dukenv0307
• Contributor+: $500 @parasharrajat (via Manual Request)

Upwork job is here.

[kadiealexander]

Adding a teammate to sort payment while I'm OOO.

[melvin-bot]

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

[kadiealexander]

Thanks for sorting payment @bfitzexpensify, the BugZero Checklist is complete here.

[bfitzexpensify]

Payout complete, BZ checklist is done so we're all wrapped up here. Thanks everyone!

[parasharrajat]

Payment requested as per #31375 (comment)

[JmillsExpensify]

$500 payment approved for @parasharrajat based on this comment.