[HOLD for payment 2023-12-04] [$500] [Wave 6: Tags] In the Tag list, two tags are highlighted at the same time

[izarutskaya]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.3.91-0
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:

1. Under the administrator account, log in to OldD
2. Enable Tag in the policy and add 7 tags
3. Add an employee to the policy
4. Log in to NewD under the employee's account
5. Create an IOU with Tag
6. Under admin in OldD, disable the selected Tag
7. In NewD, as an employee, log in to the created IOU and enter the Tag list in the fields.
8. Select another tag (you may need to repeat this step several times)

Expected Result:

Only one selected tag should be highlighted in the Tag list in all cases

Actual Result:

When you disable any Tag in OldD in the IOU(NewD) details in the Tag section, two fields are highlighted instead of the one selected.

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

Android: Native

Bug6252293_1698347957221.RPReplay_Final1698318329.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0193a0141499ea9bba
• Upwork Job ID: 1717640846589759488
• Last Price Increase: 2023-11-02
• Automatic offers:
• alitoshmatov | Reviewer | 27689487
• tienifr | Contributor | 27689489

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0193a0141499ea9bba

[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 - @alitoshmatov (External)

[tienifr]

Proposal

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

When you disable any Tag in OldD in the IOU(NewD) details in the Tag section, two fields are highlighted instead of the one selected.

What is the root cause of that problem?

In here, when calculating the initialFocusedIndex, we're getting the index of the selected tag in the original list, let's say the index is 4. The tag at index 3, is the tag that was selected then disabled, then we select the tag at index 4.

However, we're actually displaying the only the enabled tags, so in this case the index of the selected tag in the list that is shown is 3 (because the 3rd index tag is disabled so it's not contained in the list).

So 2 tags will be highlighted:

• The selected tag at index 3
• And the tag at index 4 that corresponds to the initialFocusedIndex calculated here

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

We need to make sure when getting the initialFocusedIndex, we get it from the list that will actually be shown in the OptionsSelector, we need to filter out the disabled tags here before calculating it.

We can assign the enabled tags to a variable

 const enabledTags = _.filter(policyTagList, (policyTag) => policyTag.enabled);

And use it here to calculate the initialFocusedIndex, and here when getting the count as well.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

We can additionally modify the UX to still show the "disabled but selected" tag. So that tag will still appear in the list. The logic above is still needed to ensure that the list of tags shown to the user and the list used to calculate initialFocusedIndex is always the same.

[melvin-bot]

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

[alitoshmatov]

Reviewing

[alitoshmatov]

@kevinksullivan @tienifr Can you help me test this, I created workspace in old dot and added some tags to this workspaces. I also invited employee account. When I login into employee account in new dot I am only seeing #announce room. And I cannot create money request with tags

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[eh2077]

Proposal

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

IOU - In the Tag list, two tags are highlighted at the same time

What is the root cause of that problem?

The root cause of this issue is that the initialFocusedIndex is incorrect when there're disabled tags in policyTagList, see

App/src/components/TagPicker/index.js

Lines 39 to 49 in aa30ef2

	const initialFocusedIndex = useMemo(() => {
	if (isTagsCountBelowThreshold && selectedOptions.length > 0) {
	return _.chain(policyTagList)
	.values()
	.findIndex((policyTag) => policyTag.name === selectedOptions[0].name, true)
	.value();
	}
	return 0;
	}, [policyTagList, selectedOptions, isTagsCountBelowThreshold]);

As the sections only includes enabled = true tags, so if there're diabled tags in policyTagList, the initialFocusedIndex can be wrong for the selected tag option.

The initialFocusedIndex is calculated depending on [policyTagList, selectedOptions, isTagsCountBelowThreshold], which is not including the effect of searchValue. So, there'll be issue when searching tags as well.

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

Based on the RCA above, to ensure initialFocusedIndex is correctly calculated, we should consider following two cases

1. There're disabled tags
2. When search tags

To fix the issue and achieve consistent implementation, we can use the same way to calculate initialFocusedIndex as CategoryPicker does. We can calculate initialFocusedIndex based on sections and then we can handle the two cases mentioned above together.

We can add

    const initialFocusedIndex = useMemo(() => {
        let tagInitialFocusedIndex = 0;

        if (!_.isEmpty(searchValue) || isTagsCountBelowThreshold) {
            const index = _.findIndex(lodashGet(sections, '[0].data', []), (tag) => tag.searchText === selectedTag);

            tagInitialFocusedIndex = index === -1 ? 0 : index;
        }

        return tagInitialFocusedIndex;
    }, [selectedTag, searchValue, isTagsCountBelowThreshold, sections]);

below this line.

Click to see demo video

0-web.mp4

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A

[eh2077]

@alitoshmatov We can use mocked data and modify Permissions.ts to enable selecting tags. We can mock data from console, like

Onyx.set('policyTags_53F926B8E663366D', {
            Department: {
                name: 'Department',
                tags: {
                    Accounting: {
                        name: 'Accounting',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                    Design: {
                        name: 'Design',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                    Engineering: {
                        name: 'Engineering',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                    HR: {
                        name: 'HR',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                    Infra: {
                        name: 'Infra',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                    Legal: {
                        name: 'Legal',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                    Marketing: {
                        name: 'Marketing',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                    Ops: {
                        name: 'Ops',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                    Sales: {
                        name: 'Sales',
                        enabled: true,
                    },
                },
            },
        });

See also #28151 and #26954

[melvin-bot]

@kevinksullivan, @alitoshmatov 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[alitoshmatov]

@tienifr 's proposals points out correct RCA and solution looks good and straightforward.

@tylerkaraszewski Can you confirm that disabled tags should not be shown even if they were selected tags, since it might confuse user.

C+ reviewed 🎀 👀 🎀

[melvin-bot]

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

[eh2077]

@alitoshmatov Thanks for reviewing proposals.

But I think my proposal to use same method as CategoryPicker is the better solution. The selected proposal will have two highlighted tags in search mode. When searching tags, there should be only one highlight tag

Looking forward to your feedback before assignment, thanks!

cc @tylerkaraszewski

[alitoshmatov]

@eh2077 You are right, I didn't notice issue in when searching tags at the first time. Now I get it what is wrong. Your proposal makes sense and consistent with category picker.

@tylerkaraszewski I think @eh2077 proposal is the better solution here.

C+ reviewed 🎀 👀 🎀

[tienifr]

PR ready for review #31475.

[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 1.4.3-11 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix: Two tags are highlighted at the same time #31475

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-12-04. 🎊

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:

• @alitoshmatov requires payment offer (Reviewer)
• @tienifr 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:

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

[alitoshmatov]

[@alitoshmatov] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: #27765
[@alitoshmatov] 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: #27765 (comment)
[@alitoshmatov] 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: No discussion needed
[@alitoshmatov] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. No regression test needed

[alitoshmatov]

Looks like we are ready to process the payment

[melvin-bot]

@tylerkaraszewski, @kevinksullivan, @alitoshmatov, @tienifr Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[kevinksullivan]

All set with payments!