Skip to content

[Due for payment 2025-03-13] [$500] Web - On leaving thread & tapping back, user directed to previous visited page #54574

Closed

Description

@vincdargento

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: v9.0.78-2
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: N/A
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

  1. Go to https://staging.new.expensify.com/
  2. Start in a DM with someone or any room in a workspace
  3. Go to your self DM
  4. Send a message and open reply in thread page
  5. Comment in the thread
  6. Click header to go back to your self DM
  7. Tap browser back button

Expected Result:

Land back in the thread

Actual Result:

Land on the DM or room I was in before

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

  • Android: Standalone
  • Android: HybridApp
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Standalone
  • iOS: HybridApp
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

CleanShot.2025-01-21.at.11.02.49.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit
  • Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021881910352701713160
  • Upwork Job ID: 1881910352701713160
  • Last Price Increase: 2025-02-19
  • Automatic offers:
    • allgandalf | Reviewer | 106195677
    • daledah | Contributor | 106195679
Issue OwnerCurrent Issue Owner: @allgandalf

Activity

  1. added
    BugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.
    on Dec 25, 2024
  2. melvin-bot commented on Dec 25, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    Triggered auto assignment to @anmurali (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.

  3. daledah commented on Dec 26, 2024

    @daledah
    Contributor

    🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-02-01 15:23:09 UTC.

    Proposal

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

    On leaving thread & tapping back user directed to previous visited page

    What is the root cause of that problem?

    In

    Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(parentReportID));
    if (isVisibleAction) {
    // Pop the chat report screen before navigating to the linked report action.
    Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(parentReportID, parentReportActionID), true);

    we triggered goBack when users click on the report header, that removes the thread report from navigation stack.

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

    we should use navigate in this case

     const isVisibleAction = shouldReportActionBeVisible(parentAction, parentAction?.reportActionID ?? CONST.DEFAULT_NUMBER_ID, canUserPerformWriteAction);
    
                    if (isVisibleAction) {
                        Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(parentReportID, parentReportActionID));
                    }else{
                        Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(parentReportID));
                    }
    

    What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

    What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

    NA

    Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

  4. FitseTLT commented on Dec 26, 2024

    @FitseTLT
    Contributor

    I think this should be considered as expected.

  5. melvin-bot commented on Dec 31, 2024

    @melvin-bot

    @anmurali Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

  6. anmurali commented on Dec 31, 2024

    @anmurali

    @FitseTLT - So #37355 was reverted? And we don't plan to change this behavior?

  7. melvin-bot commented on Jan 6, 2025

    @melvin-bot

    @anmurali Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

  8. anmurali commented on Jan 8, 2025

    @anmurali
  9. melvin-bot commented on Jan 8, 2025

    @melvin-bot

    @anmurali this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to a solution? Let's make sure we're treating this as a top priority. Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

  10. 80 remaining items

  11. added and removed on Mar 7, 2025
  12. allgandalf commented on Mar 10, 2025

    @allgandalf
    Contributor

    @sakluger lets put it back to daily tomorrow , so that i don;t miss the checklis

  13. sakluger commented on Mar 13, 2025

    @sakluger
    Contributor

    Summarizing payment on this issue:

    Contributor: @daledah $500, paid via Upwork
    Contributor+: @allgandalf $500, paid via Upwork

  14. sakluger commented on Mar 13, 2025

    @sakluger
    Contributor

    I went ahead and paid out both contracts, @allgandalf please complete the BZ checklist. Thanks!

  15. allgandalf commented on Mar 17, 2025

    @allgandalf
    Contributor

    BugZero Checklist:

    • [Contributor] Classify the bug:
    Bug classification

    Source of bug:

    • 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
    • 1b. Mistake during implementation
    • 1c. Backend bug
    • 1z. Other:

    Where bug was reported:

    • 2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
    • 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
    • 2d. Reported on a PR
    • 2z. Other:

    Who reported the bug:

    • 3a. Expensify user
    • 3b. Expensify employee
    • 3c. Contributor
    • 3d. QA
    • 3z. Other:
    • [Contributor] 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: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/40315/files#r1998170388

    • [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source 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

    • [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

    All the tests mentioned in:

    Regression Test Proposal Template
    • [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

      Link to issue:

    Regression Test Proposal

    Precondition:

    Test:

    Do we agree 👍 or 👎

  16. sakluger commented on Mar 17, 2025

    @sakluger
    Contributor

    Hey @allgandalf - just to confirm, all those regression tests already exist, right? No changes or new tests are required?

  17. allgandalf commented on Mar 18, 2025

    @allgandalf
    Contributor

    Yes!

  18. sakluger commented on Mar 18, 2025

    @sakluger
    Contributor

    Great, thanks for confirming!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

Awaiting PaymentAuto-added when associated PR is deployed to productionBugSomething is broken. Auto assigns a BugZero manager.DailyKSv2ExternalAdded to denote the issue can be worked on by a contributor

Type

No type

Projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions