[$1000] Auto link does not work in edit mode

[kavimuru]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Action Performed:

1. Open app
2. Send some message
3. Edit message
4. Enter a link url (eg. googel.com)

Expected Result:

The link should be auto linked

Actual Result:

The link is not auto linked instead rendered as plain text.

Workaround:

unknown

Platform:

Where is this issue occurring?

• Web
• iOS
• Android
• Desktop App
• Mobile Web

Version Number: 1.2.34-2
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: y
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Notes/Photos/Videos:

Recording.1033.mp4

autolink.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @mdneyazahmad
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1659087408740329

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01717a9143b77d9a7d
• Upwork Job ID: 1598491457766490112
• Last Price Increase: 2022-12-08

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @strepanier03 (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[markarmanus]

Proposal

Issue:
When we edit a comment we and parse the comment. we purposely dont parse links due to this issue #9090
Basically if a user send a link. but then edits the link from

[www.google.com](https://www.google.com)
To
[www.google.com] or www.google.com

It should not regenrate the link.

Now we can either keep this behaviour.

Or delete it and generate links again on edit. (diff below)

diff --git a/src/libs/actions/Report.js b/src/libs/actions/Report.js
index 164d0e60b..05d079f0e 100644
--- a/src/libs/actions/Report.js
+++ b/src/libs/actions/Report.js
@@ -899,8 +899,7 @@ function editReportComment(reportID, originalReportAction, textForNewComment) {
 
     // Do not autolink if someone explicitly tries to remove a link from comment.
     // https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/9090
-    const htmlForNewComment = parser.replace(textForNewComment, {filterRules: _.filter(_.pluck(parser.rules, 'name'), name => name !== 'autolink')});
-
+    const htmlForNewComment = parser.replace(textForNewComment);
     //  Delete the comment if it's empty
     if (_.isEmpty(htmlForNewComment)) {
         deleteReportComment(reportID, originalReportAction);

Or as a solution we can keep both and implement some sort of diff tool to check if the user deleted a specefic link we would not introduce it again.

The way we can achieve this is the following:

1. get a list of links in the original comment through a regexp that captures \[.*]\((?<link>.*)\)
2. for each link from step 1 compare to check if link still in new comment.
   3. a. if its not in the new comment then add to a list of removedLinks
   3. b if its still in the new comment then do nothing
3. parse the new comment with all the links in it
4. loop thorugh all the removedLinks and remove them again from the new parsed comment.

This would depend on the desired behaviour.

[strepanier03]

Working through triaging this now:

From this SO: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418

• The "bug" is actually a bug:
• The bug is not a duplicate report of an existing GH (close the GH and add any novel details to the original GH instead): Unable to find anything indicating this is a dupe, perhaps I'm searching wrong terms but I think this is okay.
• The bug is reproducible, following the reproduction steps: I am able to reproduce following teh provided steps.

2022-12-01_17-34-10.mp4

• If you’re unable to reproduce the bug, add the Needs reproduction label. Comment on the issue outlining the steps you took to try to reproduce the bug, your results and tag the issue reporter and the Applause QA member who created the issue. Ask them to clarify reproduction steps and/or to check the reproduction steps again. Close issue.:
• The GH template is filled out as fully as possible -- this means the GH body and title are clear (ie. could an external contributor understand it and work on it?):
• The GH was created by an Expensify employee or a QA tester:
• If the bug is an OldDot issue, you should decide whether it is widespread enough to justify fixing or it is better to wait for reunification. If it’s better to wait, close the GH & provide this justification: Netdot issue.
• If there's a link to Slack, check the discussion to see if we decided not to fix it: No discussion about not fixing.
• Decide if the GH should be resolved by an External contributor or Internal engineer, add the appropriate label: going to apply external.

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @strepanier03 is eligible for the External assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01717a9143b77d9a7d

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @eVoloshchak (External)

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @cead22 (External), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.