-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[HOLD for payment 2024-10-30] [$250] The selected approver has no background color, and the search input field appears when there are less than 8 members to select #49575
Comments
Triggered auto assignment to @abekkala ( |
Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2024-09-22 14:37:11 UTC. ProposalPlease restate the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.
What is the root cause of that problem?
What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?We should add const shouldShowTextInput = sections[0].data.length >= CONST.SHOULD_SHOW_MEMBERS_SEARCH_INPUT_BREAKPOINT; shouldShowTextInput={shouldShowTextInput}
initiallyFocusedOptionKey={selectedApproverEmail}
shouldUpdateFocusedIndex Additionally, we need to modify the initial value of the const approverIndex = Number(route.params.approverIndex) ?? 0;
const [selectedApproverEmail, setSelectedApproverEmail] = useState<string | undefined>(approvalWorkflow?.approvers[approverIndex]?.email); The same edits should be made to the category approval selector to maintain consistency. POCScreen.Recording.2024-09-22.at.5.00.19.PM.movWhat alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)We can make the focus dependent on whether shouldShowTextInput={shouldShowTextInput}
shouldUpdateFocusedIndex={!shouldShowTextInput}
initiallyFocusedOptionKey={!shouldShowTextInput ? selectedApprover : undefined} This will ensure that the selected option is focused when the search input is not displayed. |
ProposalPlease re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.
What is the root cause of that problem?1. The selected approver shows the checkmark correctly but has no background color.
We can observe the 2. Search field displayed for less than 8 members
App/src/pages/workspace/workflows/approvals/WorkspaceWorkflowsApprovalsApproverPage.tsx Line 239 in bbc0919
What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?1. The selected approver shows the checkmark correctly but has no background color.
we should add:
The 2. Search field displayed for less than 8 members2.1 Option 1:
App/src/pages/workspace/workflows/approvals/WorkspaceWorkflowsApprovalsApproverPage.tsx Line 116 in bbc0919
call
What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)2.2 Option 2:
App/src/pages/workspace/workflows/approvals/WorkspaceWorkflowsApprovalsApproverPage.tsx Line 239 in bbc0919
add:
will fix the issue. |
@abekkala Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick! |
Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021839025702753796102 |
Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @akinwale ( |
@akinwale we already have a couple proposals for review! 🎉 |
@akinwale have you been able to review the proposals above |
We can move forward with @abzokhattab's proposal here. 🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed. |
Triggered auto assignment to @carlosmiceli, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details. |
@akinwale The selected proposal have a few issues:
Screen.Recording.2024-10-02.at.07.52.58.mov
|
Right, basically any time a list item like this is in the selected state it should have a background color. Think of the checkmark and background color as being inseparable. |
@akinwale I believe you should reassess the proposals in light of the above comment. |
I think this is more of an implementation detail, the other flow matches the issue requirement and solves the issue. in infact we can have a lets see what others think. |
📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸 |
@truph01 Could you post a video demo of your proposed solution? |
@akinwale Here is my video demo: Screen.Recording.2024-10-09.at.16.51.02.mov |
📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸 |
After a second review, we can move forward with @truph01's proposal here. cc: @carlosmiceli |
📣 @akinwale 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app! |
📣 @truph01 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app! Offer link |
PR is ready |
I'm going ooo until Oct 18. Given that the PR has not deployed to production yet starting the 7 day waiting period I'm going to keep this assign to only me and I can process payment when I return Payment Summary [date, TBD]: |
|
The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.52-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue: If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-10-30. 🎊 For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:
|
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:
|
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: 9.0.39-0
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: @dannymcclain
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1726843553984039
Action Performed:
Prerequisite: Control workspace with 3 members added
Expected Result:
The selected approver shows the checkmark, background color and search field only if there are more than 8 members showing.
Actual Result:
The selected approver shows the checkmark correctly but has no background color and search field displayed for less than 8 members
Workaround:
Unknown
Platforms:
Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?
Screenshots/Videos
CleanShot.2024-09-20.at.08.52.18.mp4
Recording.566.mp4
Add any screenshot/video evidence
View all open jobs on GitHub
Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit
Issue Owner
Current Issue Owner: @abekkalaThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: