Fix double OpenReport call when comment linking, enable test

[janicduplessis]

Details

There is an error in the effects logic that will cause OpenReport to be fire twice when comment linking.

We can observe the requests in the browser network tab after linking to a comment. Note that requests are fired twice in dev mode because of effects being called twice, so you can see 4 calls before and 2 after.

Before:

After:

Fixed Issues

$ #47889
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
• Verify that OpenReport is now only called once
• Verify that tests pass

Offline tests

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
• Verify that only one call to OpenReport happens when opening a comment link (or 2 calls if in dev mode). Use the following steps to test this.

Prepare 2 chats:

• Chat A post a few messages and right click on a message then select "Copy link"
• Chat B post the link copied in the previous step

Then follow these steps:

• Make sure that chat B is selected
• Go to Troubleshoot and clear cache
• Return to chat B
• Click on link to chat A

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

N/A

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A

iOS: Native

N/A

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A

MacOS: Desktop

N/A

[melvin-bot]

@sobitneupane Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[janicduplessis]

@tsa321 Could you tell me why this code was added so I can make sure I don't break that case?

Currently the problem is that both

App/src/pages/home/ReportScreen.tsx

Line 523 in 194f197

useEffect(() => {

and

App/src/pages/home/ReportScreen.tsx

Line 533 in 194f197

useEffect(() => {

effects are triggered and cause a OpenReport calls when linking to a comment (you can see repro steps in the issue description). If we cannot just remove the condition do you have ideas for a better fix?

[tsa321]

@janicduplessis In my PR, I am moving this OpenReport:

https://github.com/tsa321/App/blob/580243df4323aeb51cd4a44b28431ba29b9d5b21/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionsView.tsx#L317-L327

from ReportActionsView to ReportScreen because we want to display a loading skeleton when the LinkedPage isn't ready.

My mistake was also modifying this line:

App/src/pages/home/ReportScreen.tsx

Line 525 in 844c6bf

if (isLoadingReportOnyx || (reportActionIDFromRoute && report.reportID && isLinkedMessagePageReady)) {

which results in OpenReport being called twice.

As long as OpenReport is called when the LinkedPage isn't ready, it is fine to proceed with your solution.

[janicduplessis]

@tsa321 Thanks for the info! I did test using the steps in the linked PR and everything seems fine, I think we can proceed with this.

[sobitneupane]

Thanks for the PR @janicduplessis

Looks like the issue is not reproducible any longer on the main branch. I don't see much difference in the requests before and after the PR.

Before:

Screen.Recording.2024-08-23.at.16.21.58.mov

After:

Screen.Recording.2024-08-23.at.16.17.50.mov

[tsa321]

@sobitneupane, I noticed in your video that you clicked the link to a report without the report action id parameter. Therefore, it's not linking to a specific comment (comment linking); it’s just opening a report.

To test this issue:

1. Go to Troubleshoot -> clearing Onyx.
2. Click a comment link. The format is : dev.new.expensify:8082/r/reportid/reportactionid.

[janicduplessis]

Yes you will have to right click on a message and select "Copy link", will clarify the testing steps.

[sobitneupane]

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-08-26.at.18.20.51.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-08-26.at.18.15.56.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-08-26.at.18.18.42.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-08-26.at.17.59.04.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-08-26.at.18.14.04.mov

[sobitneupane]

Reviewer Checklist

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If any new file was added I verified that:
  • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

[melvin-bot]

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #47889 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

[pecanoro]

Hmm, performance tests are failing. Did we break them here or coming from somewhere else?

[janicduplessis]

This should not affect perf, will merge main see if it passes after.

If it still doesn't pass I will have a look tomorrow.

[pecanoro]

@janicduplessis Friendly bump to take a look at those tests 😊

[janicduplessis]

The test failure is cause by this mock that I added to make FlatList easier to test, it causes a few additional renders in a perf test since now the list renders synchronously. I think this is actually good as it will also make performance tests that involve lists easier to properly tests.

However I am unsure how to update these performance tests, I think it compares with the current main so if we just merge this with the failing tests it should be fine?

[pecanoro]

@janicduplessis Thank you for the context! I agree the changes make it easier. However, I am not really good with these perf tests, so something that I still don't fully understand is why we are now rendering it 5 times instead of none and why it should be fine. In my brain, it feels like we are doing extra renders when we shouldn't 🤔

[janicduplessis]

@pecanoro FlatList batches updates in 50ms batches by default, this means the tests would have to wait 50 ms every time after an interaction to make sure the list updates. With the mock I added the list will now render immediately after each interaction, which is what explains the new renders. I think this is better since I assume the test would expect the list to render immediately after simulating an interaction like scrolling.

[mountiny]

Thanks for the explanation, this makes sense.

The baseline will be updated by us merging this to main so we should be all good to merge this

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 9.0.27-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.0.27-1 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅