[HOLD for payment 2024-06-20] [Search v1] - Skeleton appears under expenses when sorting expenses when there is no more expenses

[izarutskaya]

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: v1.4.81-8
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: New feature
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Issue reported by: Applause-Internal team

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• User has a few expenses (two expenses would be enough).

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to Search.
3. Click on the header to sort.

Expected Result:

Skeleton will not appear under the expenses since there is no hidden expenses.

Actual Result:

Skeleton appears under the expenses when sorting expenses, even when there is no expense to load.

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

Bug6509214_1718101208792.20240611_181606.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @JmillsExpensify

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @JmillsExpensify (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.

[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.

[izarutskaya]

@JmillsExpensify 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.

[izarutskaya]

We think this issue might be related to the #vip-vsb

[tsa321]

Proposal

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

Search - Skeleton appears under expenses when sorting expenses when there is no more expenses

What is the root cause of that problem?

In here:

App/src/components/Search.tsx

Line 69 in 6eea419

const isLoadingMoreItems = !isLoadingItems && searchResults?.search?.isLoading;

IsLoadingMoreItems value doesn't check on offset of the search result. It is intended to display skeleton when loading more items (so offset must be more than 0)

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

We should add more check on the IsLoadingMoreItems by adding && searchResults?.search?.offset > 0

[luacmartins]

I don't think this is a blocker since the feature is not broken. I agree that we can check for the offset. @tsa321 are you available to work on the PR?

[tsa321]

Yes @luacmartins

[tsa321]

@luacmartins The PR is ready

[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 1.4.82-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix list item skeleton appears when ordering search result #43497

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-20. 🎊

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

• @tsa321 requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

• [@luacmartins] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@luacmartins] 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:
• [@luacmartins] 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:
• [@tsa321] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@tsa321] 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.
• [@JmillsExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Contributor: @tsa321 paid $250 via Upwork
• Contributor+: @mollfpr paid $250 via NewDot

BugZero Checklist (@JmillsExpensify)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[JmillsExpensify]

I've filled out the payment summary above for @tsa321 for $250. It doesn't look like an Upwork job was created, so I created one. @tsa321 what's your Upwork profile so I can invite you?

[mollfpr]

Sorry forgot to comment here that I reviewed the PR.

[JmillsExpensify]

Thanks, I've confirmed that's correct. Payment summary is updated above.

[tsa321]

@JmillsExpensify my upwork profile: https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01bfc26d267bade652

[JmillsExpensify]

Offer sent

[tsa321]

@JmillsExpensify I have accepted the offer

[JmillsExpensify]

All paid out! @mollfpr please complete the checklist and request payment in NewDot!

[mollfpr]

The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
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:

I couldn't trace the original offending PR.

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:

The regression step should be good.

Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
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.

1. Create 3 iou requests to any user
2. Open the transaction search page
3. Reorder the transaction list search result by clicking on the list header
4. Verify skeleton transaction items don't appear
5. 👍 or 👎

[mallenexpensify]

Contributor: @tsa321 paid $250 via Upwork
Contributor+: @mollfpr due $250 via NewDot

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @mollfpr

[JmillsExpensify]

Regression test created!