You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[HOLD for payment 2023-10-12] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-10] [$250] Settings - Green dot appears even though there is no Contact methods #28643
Green dot appears even though there is no Contact methods
Workaround:
Unknown
Platforms:
Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?
Android / native
Android / Chrome
iOS / native
iOS / Safari
MacOS / Chrome / Safari
MacOS / Desktop
Version Number: 1.3.76.0 Reproducible in staging?: y Reproducible in production?: n If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): Logs:https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856 Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation
👋 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:
Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
In this function we are checking for validatedDate although loginList is a list (array), so the property is not directly accessible which results to undefined and ultimately return true due to !
What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?
We can return this instead of loginList.validatedDate;
changed the title [-][HOLD for payment 2023-10-10] [$250] Settings - Green dot appears even though there is no Contact methods[/-][+][HOLD for payment 2023-10-12] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-10] [$250] Settings - Green dot appears even though there is no Contact methods[/+]on Oct 5, 2023
The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.77-7 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 2023-10-12. 🎊
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:
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:
[@situchan] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
[@situchan] 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:
[@situchan] 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:
[@situchan] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
[@situchan] 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.
[@trjExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:
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: N/A
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.
This bug should have been caught earlier during PR review if they fully tested their code changes.
Now that C+ is able to review TS migration PRs, there will be less chance of having this kind of regression.
As such, I don't propose regression test.
Activity
OSBotify commentedon Oct 2, 2023
👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open
StagingDeployCashdeploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:melvin-bot commentedon Oct 2, 2023
Triggered auto assignment to @marcaaron (
Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.saranshbalyan-1234 commentedon Oct 2, 2023
Proposal
Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.
Getting green dot even there is no contact method.
What is the root cause of that problem?
App/src/libs/UserUtils.ts
Lines 44 to 46 in 42e2247
In this function we are checking for validatedDate although loginList is a list (array), so the property is not directly accessible which results to undefined and ultimately return true due to !
What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?
We can return this instead of loginList.validatedDate;
What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)
N/A
mountiny commentedon Oct 2, 2023
@saranshbalyan-1234 reminder for any deploy blockers, always link the offending PR. Thanks
marcaaron commentedon Oct 2, 2023
I currently cannot sign into staging to verify this. Probably related to the site instability. I will try again in a bit.
marcaaron commentedon Oct 2, 2023
Though it looks like this is the PR where it was introduced:
https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/27778/files
marcaaron commentedon Oct 2, 2023
cc @blazejkustra - but I'm guessing we did not intend to change the signature here and just got tripped up by the wrong type.
mountiny commentedon Oct 2, 2023
Blazej wont get online for next probably 8-10 hours, can we proactively revert the PR if we confirm this fixes the blocker? @marcaaron thanks!
marcaaron commentedon Oct 3, 2023
it's probably easier to just fix it. but you are the deployer so lmk how you want to proceed.
marcaaron commentedon Oct 3, 2023
Oh I see you meant just for TESTING haha I have a branch here.✈️ LAG
marcaaron commentedon Oct 3, 2023
#28668
35 remaining items
melvin-bot commentedon Oct 3, 2023
melvin-bot commentedon Oct 3, 2023
[-][HOLD for payment 2023-10-10] [$250] Settings - Green dot appears even though there is no Contact methods[/-][+][HOLD for payment 2023-10-12] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-10] [$250] Settings - Green dot appears even though there is no Contact methods[/+]melvin-bot commentedon Oct 5, 2023
The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.3.77-7 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 2023-10-12. 🎊
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.
For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:
As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:
melvin-bot commentedon Oct 5, 2023
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:
marcaaron commentedon Oct 10, 2023
@situchan I think we are waiting for the checklist items to be completed here
situchan commentedon Oct 10, 2023
This bug should have been caught earlier during PR review if they fully tested their code changes.
Now that C+ is able to review TS migration PRs, there will be less chance of having this kind of regression.
As such, I don't propose regression test.
trjExpensify commentedon Oct 11, 2023
Nice, thanks! Confirming payments as follows from here.
@situchan $250 for the DB PR review
@gadhiyamanan $50 for the bug report.
Settled up, and closing!