[HOLD for payment 2024-06-06] [HOLD for payment 2024-05-06] [HOLD for payment 2024-05-03] Quick action - Fallback avatar is displayed on quick action after user avatar loads

[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: 1.4.66-0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): natnael.expensify+3@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Issue found when executing PR #39229

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Submit a request to a user you haven't chatted with before
3. Click on 'FAB'

Expected Result:

Avatar on quick action should be similar to the one loaded on report and LHN of the new user

Actual Result:

Avatar on quick action remained to be a fallback avatar

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

Bug6461684_1714056035909.Screen_Recording_2024-04-25_at_4.58.23_in_the_afternoon.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @Christinadobrzyn

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @flodnv (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[lanitochka17]

@flodnv FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors

[ZhenjaHorbach]

I think it's dupe

#40536

Because they have the same root cause

[mountiny]

I am looking if reverting #39229 will fix this

[mountiny]

Making a revert here #41087

[grgia]

cc @Kicu

[mountiny]

This was not fully fixed with the revert, however, after refresh I have got the correct avatar there.

Screen.Recording.2024-04-26.at.14.00.48.mp4

@Kicu would you be able to include this flow in your testing steps for the second PR?

[mountiny]

Can you please comment on this issue so I can assign you and @grgia so you can then address this avatar logic, please? Thanks!

[Kicu]

@mountiny if you feel like reverting is the best course of action then of course feel free to. However when Im watching your recording I don't really see how this is better.

Clearly there is an underlying bug where quick action displays the "older" avatar. In your case after revert its the first "optimistic" avatar that we get - sure its a green one but its not the final one for the user. So the bug of not refreshing avatar correctly I think was there.

In general what I intended to fix was this changing (flashing) of one avatar to the other after the api call finishes. The original bug can be seen on your recording from 0:40 - 0:44.
So if we revert we just change the bug with fallback avatar to the old bug that was always there.

I will of course investigate how to best fix this

[mountiny]

In general what I intended to fix was this changing (flashing) of one avatar to the other after the api call finishes. The original bug can be seen on your recording from 0:40 - 0:44.
So if we revert we just change the bug with fallback avatar to the old bug that was always there.

Yep, I am aware of that, this issue existed before the PR. The other two blockers were actually fixed and we can deploy now, so that was the train of thoughts.

[mountiny]

cc @Gonals for visibility as this is related to the QAB

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @Christinadobrzyn (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.67-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Revert "Use fallback user avatar in cases where the user is unknown to us" #41087

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-05-06. 🎊

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

• @Kicu does not require payment (Contractor)

[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:

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

[Christinadobrzyn]

@Kicu do we need a regression test for this?

[melvin-bot]

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

[Christinadobrzyn]

@Kicu @s77rt do you know if we need a regression test for this?

[s77rt]

@Christinadobrzyn We don't need a regression test for this once since it was caused by a recent PR. Any needed regression test will be added in #38743

[Christinadobrzyn]

Thank you @s77rt! It looks like this can be closed without payment as @Kicu is a contractor.

Closing but let me know if I'm missing anything.

[melvin-bot]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[Kicu]

FYI a PR that implements similar functionality that the original PR was merged. If by any chance the bug would come back please ping me. But I believe it should be fixed.

[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 1.4.77-11 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Use fallback user avatar in cases where the user is unknown to us #41846

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-06. 🎊

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

• @Kicu does not require payment (Contractor)

[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:

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