[Fix]: Inconsistency in limitation when adding members via FAB and group details page #40537

allgandalf · 2024-04-19T09:32:15Z

Details

When creating a group via FAB, we limit the number of participants to 8, but on when we add members via report details page, we do not limit the members, this PR solves this mismatch by removing the maximum participant limit on FAB.

Fixed Issues

$ #40512
PROPOSAL: #40512 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA

QA Steps

Open App
Go to FAB > Start chat.
Add as many people to the group as you want
Verify that you can "Add to group" more than 8 participants.
Click Next > Start group and verify the group chat is created successfully.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.3.03.25.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.3.06.06.PM.mov

Android: Native

group.add.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-04-22.at.6.26.11.AM.mov

iOS: Native

issu.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-04-22.at.6.24.22.AM.mov

melvin-bot · 2024-04-19T09:32:20Z

@cubuspl42 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]

allgandalf · 2024-04-19T09:51:43Z

Facing some issues with iOS built due to AirshipFrameworkProxy 🙃 , I'll update the videos once I build it successfully

allgandalf · 2024-04-22T00:57:25Z

PR ready for your review @cubuspl42

src/pages/NewChatPage.tsx

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-04-25T10:39:03Z

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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

a.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

aw.mov

iOS: Native

i.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

iw.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

w.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-04-25.at.1.47.35.PM.mov

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-04-25T10:43:58Z

src/pages/NewChatPage.tsx


    const [sections, firstKeyForList] = useMemo(() => {
        const sectionsList: OptionsListUtils.CategorySection[] = [];
        let firstKey = '';

-        const formatResults = OptionsListUtils.formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(debouncedSearchTerm, selectedOptions, recentReports, personalDetails, maxParticipantsReached);
+        const formatResults = OptionsListUtils.formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(debouncedSearchTerm, selectedOptions, recentReports, personalDetails, false);


Suggested change

const formatResults = OptionsListUtils.formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(debouncedSearchTerm, selectedOptions, recentReports, personalDetails, false);

const formatResults = OptionsListUtils.formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(debouncedSearchTerm, selectedOptions, recentReports, personalDetails);

I think the default value for parameter is false, so no need to pass it.

are you sure @ahmedGaber93 ?

I see can't makes sense of the assignment:

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

Lines 2176 to 2181 in d8e6990

function formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(

searchTerm: string,

selectedOptions: ReportUtils.OptionData[],

filteredRecentReports: ReportUtils.OptionData[],

filteredPersonalDetails: ReportUtils.OptionData[],

maxOptionsSelected: boolean,

Does the above assignment means it is set to false?

@GandalfGwaihir Ah, you are right, it is not having default value, ignore this change it is not affected.

Why do we still need this param? Is there some case where maxOptionsSelected applies anymore?

Okay missed this, I will check if there are any additional constraints for this to happen, will let you know by EOD

Also, do you know why there was a limit on Money request participant selector in the first place?

@marcaaron , made the changes, can you review it when you find time

Reviewing today.

Also, do you know why there was a limit on Money request participant selector in the first place?

Sure! And sorry, I should have caught this sooner. But it's because the "split" request lands on a Group DM between you and all the other participants. Since we had a previous restriction on that. Now that there is none for Group Chats we can do the same behavior everywhere.

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-04-25T11:42:20Z

@GandalfGwaihir just small change in tests step.

Instead of "The expected result here is that we will not limit the number of participants added to the group".
4. Verify that you can "Add to group" more than 8 participants.
5. Click Next > Start group and verify the group chat is created successfully.

allgandalf · 2024-04-25T11:51:00Z

I guess we're all set @ahmedGaber93 🚀

ahmedGaber93

LGTM!

marcaaron

Looks good. But I don't think there are any flows left that should have max participants at this point. Maybe I am wrong 😄 Please let me know.

src/pages/NewChatPage.tsx

marcaaron · 2024-04-25T18:39:41Z

src/pages/NewChatPage.tsx


    const [sections, firstKeyForList] = useMemo(() => {
        const sectionsList: OptionsListUtils.CategorySection[] = [];
        let firstKey = '';

-        const formatResults = OptionsListUtils.formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(debouncedSearchTerm, selectedOptions, recentReports, personalDetails, maxParticipantsReached);
+        const formatResults = OptionsListUtils.formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(debouncedSearchTerm, selectedOptions, recentReports, personalDetails, false);


Why do we still need this param? Is there some case where maxOptionsSelected applies anymore?

allgandalf · 2024-04-25T22:39:00Z

I guess we're good to merge this one @marcaaron 🚀

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

src/pages/iou/request/MoneyTemporaryForRefactorRequestParticipantsSelector.js

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-04-29T16:12:44Z

@GandalfGwaihir are you able to test split expense with more than 8 participants?
I am blocked to test it with this error, although I never chat with some of the before!

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-04-29T16:28:32Z

I can test it now, but when submit split expense with more than 8 participants, API SplitBillAndOpenReport take long time > 30s to response.
I am not sure if the problem is with my network or not. Can you please test it and confirm @GandalfGwaihir?

marcaaron · 2024-04-29T19:16:30Z

I am blocked to test it with this error, although I never chat with some of the before!

Gonna take a brief look in the backend to make sure we have no restriction there... I would guess there is something wrong with the optimistic data or the way we are handling it.

marcaaron · 2024-04-29T19:22:15Z

Ok, there is no restriction on participant number in the backend. However, it would be helpful to see what params we are sending to the API in this case for debug purposes. There should be a chatType: 'group' param being sent. If it's not sent this could be the problem.

allgandalf · 2024-04-29T19:31:08Z

okay, I will take a look at that , just to confirm, are we still dealing with the participant selector in this same issue right? or should we deal this case under a new issue altogether?, this issue was primarily focused on removing restriction on number of participants in group chat

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-04-29T19:46:32Z

@marcaaron Frontend already sent chatType: 'group' parameter with the request, also I think the user should be able to split expense with the same users who split with them before without this error There is a previously existing chat between these users., but I don't think this related to this PR so we can skip it now.

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-04-29T19:54:55Z

are we still dealing with the participant selector in this same issue right?

@GandalfGwaihir if I understand you well, yes we will fix limited participants in split expense and group chat in this issue.

allgandalf · 2024-04-29T20:05:32Z

cool @ahmedGaber93 , let me test with split expenses then!

…antsSelector.js Co-authored-by: ahmedGaber93 <[email protected]>

marcaaron · 2024-04-29T23:09:19Z

okay, I will take a look at that , just to confirm, are we still dealing with the participant selector in this same issue right? or should we deal this case under a new issue altogether?, this issue was primarily focused on removing restriction on number of participants in group chat

@GandalfGwaihir I don't think we need a new issue. We need to remove the restriction anywhere a "Group Chat" is created - doesn't matter which flow. Reminder that it's always possible to request comp change if you feel like the scope of work has changed enough to warrant it.

I don't think this related to this PR so we can skip it now

@ahmedGaber93 To confirm, you saying that you can reproduce this on staging or production? Could you give exact reproduction steps so we can look into them?

Thanks everyone!

allgandalf · 2024-04-29T23:11:12Z

@marcaaron @ahmedGaber93 , pushed the latest changes allowing split expenses as well, can you review this once?

ahmedGaber93 · 2024-04-30T11:38:18Z

Could you give exact reproduction steps so we can look into them?

@marcaaron Sorry, I should do that from the beginning.

Bug: DEV - split expense with the same users failed in the second time.

Click fab > split expense and split any amount with user A and user B.
repeat the step 1 with the same users.

Split expense failed with error There is a previously existing chat between these users.

it also failed if split users contain at latest one user I split with him before.

20240430142901652.mp4

ahmedGaber93

LGTM!

marcaaron · 2024-04-30T21:52:18Z

Sorry, I should do that from the beginning.

No worries at all. I thank you for your thoroughness and appreciate you bringing it to our attention 🙇

It appears this is happening on staging already. Though I could only reproduce it one time (not sure what is happening here). But let's look into it in a new issue if there is a reliable reproduction.

OSBotify · 2024-04-30T22:19:42Z

✋ 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 · 2024-05-01T03:01:43Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.4.69-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-05-02T13:05:18Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.4.69-2 🚀

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

Do not limit the number of participants in a group chat

cb4b1bf

allgandalf requested a review from a team as a code owner April 19, 2024 09:32

melvin-bot bot requested review from cubuspl42 and removed request for a team April 19, 2024 09:32

cubuspl42 reviewed Apr 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/pages/NewChatPage.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

allgandalf added 3 commits April 24, 2024 05:08

Remove the use of max participants completely

b4a7f0a

Remove variable declaration

a630a53

remove extra whitespace

884e17d

mallenexpensify mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-05-09] [$250] Group chat - Inconsistency in limitation when adding members via FAB and group details page #40512

Closed

5 tasks

fix lint

a8b53ee

ahmedGaber93 reviewed Apr 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

ahmedGaber93 approved these changes Apr 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from marcaaron April 25, 2024 12:12

marcaaron requested changes Apr 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron assigned allgandalf Apr 25, 2024

allgandalf added 5 commits April 29, 2024 16:26

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into issue40512

19c9223

Remove limit for split bill participant selector

5f864fc

Remove extra prop from tests

f93ad7b

resolve Merge conflict

3d0088f

resolve Merge conflict

c512134

ahmedGaber93 reviewed Apr 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

src/pages/iou/request/MoneyTemporaryForRefactorRequestParticipantsSelector.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update src/pages/iou/request/MoneyTemporaryForRefactorRequestParticip…

47ba4a2

…antsSelector.js Co-authored-by: ahmedGaber93 <[email protected]>

Remove restrictions on split expenses

71d0830

ahmedGaber93 approved these changes Apr 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from marcaaron April 30, 2024 11:54

marcaaron approved these changes Apr 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron merged commit 1abad69 into Expensify:main Apr 30, 2024
17 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 1, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-05-01 #41376

Closed

59 tasks

	const formatResults = OptionsListUtils.formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(debouncedSearchTerm, selectedOptions, recentReports, personalDetails, false);
	const formatResults = OptionsListUtils.formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(debouncedSearchTerm, selectedOptions, recentReports, personalDetails);

	function formatSectionsFromSearchTerm(
	searchTerm: string,
	selectedOptions: ReportUtils.OptionData[],
	filteredRecentReports: ReportUtils.OptionData[],
	filteredPersonalDetails: ReportUtils.OptionData[],
	maxOptionsSelected: boolean,

[Fix]: Inconsistency in limitation when adding members via FAB and group details page #40537

[Fix]: Inconsistency in limitation when adding members via FAB and group details page #40537

Conversation

allgandalf commented Apr 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 19, 2024

allgandalf commented Apr 19, 2024

allgandalf commented Apr 22, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 25, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 25, 2024

allgandalf commented Apr 25, 2024

ahmedGaber93 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

allgandalf commented Apr 25, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 29, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 29, 2024

marcaaron commented Apr 29, 2024

marcaaron commented Apr 29, 2024

allgandalf commented Apr 29, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 29, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 29, 2024 • edited Loading

allgandalf commented Apr 29, 2024

marcaaron commented Apr 29, 2024

allgandalf commented Apr 29, 2024

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 30, 2024

ahmedGaber93 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron commented Apr 30, 2024 • edited Loading

OSBotify commented Apr 30, 2024

OSBotify commented May 1, 2024

OSBotify commented May 2, 2024

allgandalf commented Apr 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ahmedGaber93 commented Apr 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcaaron commented Apr 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading