[HOLD for payment 2023-12-29] [HOLD for payment 2023-12-28] Scan - "Reply in thread" is not present for IOU preview with ongoing smartscanning

[kbecciv]

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: v1.4.14-2
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
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Click FAB > Request money > Manual.
2. Request money from a user.
3. In 1:1 DM where the money is requested, right click on the IOU preview.
4. Click on the IOU preview to open report page and right click on the IOU preview.
5. Note that "Reply in thread" is present.
6. Repeat Step 1-4 with a Scan request.

Expected Result:

"Reply in thread" is present for IOU preview with ongoing smart scanning.

Actual Result:

"Reply in thread" is not present for IOU preview with ongoing smart scanning.

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

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6321251_1703078730828.bandicam_2023-12-20_15-57-05-794.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @narefyev91

[github-actions]

👋 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:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @aldo-expensify (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[kbecciv]

Not reproducible on production

bandicam.2023-12-20.16-02-07-482.mp4

[dukenv0307]

Proposal

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

"Reply in thread" is not present for IOU preview with ongoing smart scanning.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are not allowing reply in thread for whisper action. So when the request is scanning, it's wishper action and then no reply in thread option

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.js

Line 151 in 9ea6b39

!isWhisperAction &&

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

We should allow reply in thread for IOU action even if it's a whisper

(!isWhisperAction || reportAction.actionName === CONST.REPORT.ACTIONS.TYPE.IOU)

App/src/pages/home/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.js

Line 151 in 9ea6b39

!isWhisperAction &&

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[aldo-expensify]

hum.. if it is a whisper action, other users in the conversation won't see it right? I find it strange to be able to start a thread from a whisper since others won't be able to see the parent report action

[aldo-expensify]

Does the smartscan preview stop being a whisper once the smartscan process is finished? In such case it would make sense to me that a thread can exist from it because it will become visible for other participants

[aldo-expensify]

Does the smartscan preview stop being a whisper once the smartscan process is finished?

From my testing, apparently not.

[aldo-expensify]

hmm from the admin's perspective, the admin can see this whisper:

🤯

[aldo-expensify]

The "Only visible to you" is a lie then:

[dukenv0307]

@aldo-expensify what is the next step here? Should we fix this issue or it's intendtional.

[aldo-expensify]

@aldo-expensify what is the next step here? Should we fix this issue or it's intendtional.

I'm not sure yet, I'm asking in slack too

[aldo-expensify]

What would make sense to me here is:

1. This preview should be updated to stop being a whisper once the smartscan is resolved or cancelled
2. We allow the user to thread from this particular whisper because we know that at some point it may not be a whisper anymore

We can still implement 2. without doing 1., so I think we should proceed with what your are suggesting (checking proposal)

[aldo-expensify]

in the context of a normal IOU in a DM the whisper is really only visible to the submitter, unlike when we are in a workspace

[aldo-expensify]

Can you put up the PR now @dukenv0307 ?

[dukenv0307]

@aldo-expensify Yes, I'm available now

[aldo-expensify]

@aldo-expensify Yes, I'm available now

Nice, assigned it to you

[dukenv0307]

@aldo-expensify The PR is ready for review.

[aldo-expensify]

Thanks for the quick work!

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.14-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP-Staging] Enable reply in thread for iou whisper action #33364

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-12-28. 🎊

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:

• @narefyev91 does not require payment (Contractor)
• @dukenv0307 requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

• [@narefyev91] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@narefyev91] 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:
• [@narefyev91] 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:
• [@narefyev91] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@narefyev91] 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.
• [@conorpendergrast] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.15-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP-Staging] Enable reply in thread for iou whisper action #33364

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-12-29. 🎊

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:

• @narefyev91 does not require payment (Contractor)
• @dukenv0307 requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[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:

• [@narefyev91] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@narefyev91] 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:
• [@narefyev91] 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:
• [@narefyev91] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@narefyev91] 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.
• [@conorpendergrast] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Contributor+: @narefyev91 is from an agency-contributor and not due payment

• Contributor : @dukenv0307 paid $500 via Upwork (offer)

  BugZero Checklist (@conorpendergrast)

  • I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above
  • I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
  • I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
  • I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[melvin-bot]

@conorpendergrast, @narefyev91, @aldo-expensify, @dukenv0307 Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[melvin-bot]

@conorpendergrast, @narefyev91, @aldo-expensify, @dukenv0307 Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[aldo-expensify]

@conorpendergrast is OOO until next week

[melvin-bot]

@conorpendergrast, @narefyev91, @aldo-expensify, @dukenv0307 Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[conorpendergrast]

I am back from OoO! Offer sent to @dukenv0307

[melvin-bot]

@conorpendergrast, @narefyev91, @aldo-expensify, @dukenv0307 Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[conorpendergrast]

@dukenv0307 Bump on accepting the offer please!

[dukenv0307]

@dukenv0307 Bump on accepting the offer please!

@conorpendergrast accepted, thank you!

[conorpendergrast]

Paid and contract ended! C+ checklist by @narefyev91 is the last step, please

[narefyev91]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR - it was not a regression - just missing functionality
• 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 - N/A
• 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 - N/A

[conorpendergrast]

Sounds good, thanks! Closing out, thanks everyone