fix: expense report disappears from LHN after opening transaction thread header in RHP by nkdengineer · Pull Request #61130 · Expensify/App

nkdengineer · 2025-04-30T02:33:50Z

Explanation of Change

fix: expense report disappears from LHN after opening transaction thread header in RHP

Fixed Issues

$ #60749
PROPOSAL: #60749 (comment)

Tests

Go to WS chat or DM
Create two expenses
Open the iou report
Click on any transaction
Click on the header of the RHP report
Verify on LHN, the expense report is still highlighted

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same

QA Steps

Go to WS chat or DM
Create two expenses
Open the iou report
Click on any transaction
Click on the header of the RHP report
Verify on LHN, the expense report is still highlighted

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.09.18.43.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.09.15.00.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.09.19.50.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.09.17.20.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.09.12.41.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.09.22.10.mov

…ead header in RHP

melvin-bot · 2025-04-30T03:39:12Z

@eh2077 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]

eh2077 · 2025-04-30T14:26:37Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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 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.ts 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
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: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.10.23.54.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.10.22.05.PM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.10.25.30.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.10.22.35.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.10.21.01.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-04-30.at.10.26.11.PM.mov

eh2077 · 2025-04-30T14:29:52Z

[ ] I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx

I'd like to skip this item of the checklist in this PR because there's an ongoing task #60531 to handle all exiting alerts.

eh2077

LGTM

mountiny · 2025-04-30T19:21:06Z

@WojtekBoman @adamgrzybowski could you please review this one?

WojtekBoman · 2025-04-30T20:50:25Z

    }

-    const pathSegments = parsingRoute.split('/');
+    const state = getStateFromPath(parsingRoute, linkingConfig.config) as PartialState<NavigationState<RootNavigatorParamList>>;


I think you can use here @libs/Navigation/helpers/getStateFromPath

@nkdengineer thoughts?

@WojtekBoman I updated.

adamgrzybowski · 2025-05-05T10:53:19Z

+    const focusedRoute = findFocusedRoute(state);

-    const reportIDSegment = pathSegments.at(1);
-    const hasRouteReportActionID = !Number.isNaN(Number(reportIDSegment));
+    const reportID = focusedRoute?.params && 'reportID' in focusedRoute.params ? (focusedRoute?.params?.reportID as string) : '';



I think we want to explicitly check if focused route is the right one by checking the name like if (focusedRoute.name === SCREENS.REPORT || ... (check other screens that are report screens))

There may be non report routes that have reportID in the future.

Also, maybe just return undefined if it's not a report route? Why put and empty string and isSubReportPageRoute that doens't really have a meaning in this context?

adamgrzybowski · 2025-05-05T11:01:07Z

+    if (!reportID) {
        return {reportID: '', isSubReportPageRoute: false};
    }

    return {
-        reportID: reportIDSegment,
-        isSubReportPageRoute: pathSegments.length > 2 && !hasRouteReportActionID,
+        reportID,
+        isSubReportPageRoute: focusedRoute?.name !== SCREENS.REPORT,
    };


I am wondering if maybe we could just return a focusedRoute if it is a report route?

reportID is not the only param of the report screen which could be missleading

isSubReportPageRoute for binary situation. What if we get more types of report screens? IMO it's more readable if we just check the name of the route in place where we want to use parseReportRouteParams.

As an afterthought, maybe we could change this function to just parseRoute?

Then check the name in place where this function is used. It looks like it is used only in two places.

On of these places is getReportIDFromLink. It look a little redundant to me.

@adamgrzybowski Currently, this function is only focusing on the r/ route.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 8040 to 8045 in 0601503

if (!parsingRoute.startsWith(addTrailingForwardSlash(ROUTES.REPORT))) {

return {reportID: '', isSubReportPageRoute: false};

}

const pathSegments = parsingRoute.split('/');

If it's only for the SCREENS.REPORT, how is this line supposed to work?

isSubReportPageRoute: focusedRoute?.name !== SCREENS.REPORT,

It will always be false

@adamgrzybowski Here, we're checking with startsWith condition. We can have the route like this r/:reportID/details, ... which isSubReportPageRoute will be true.

Ok makes sense. Could you please add comment explaining what sub report route is? I don't think this term is widely used in the app.

@adamgrzybowski I added.

mountiny · 2025-05-12T15:18:38Z

@adamgrzybowski Could you do a final review?

@eh2077 can you please re-test?

eh2077 · 2025-05-12T15:20:58Z

Yes, sure on it

eh2077 · 2025-05-12T15:58:24Z

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-05-12.at.11.52.08.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-05-12.at.11.49.42.PM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-05-12.at.11.50.14.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-05-12.at.11.48.27.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-05-12.at.11.42.38.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-05-12.at.11.45.08.PM.mov

Retested all platforms and works well! cc @mountiny

adamgrzybowski

LGTM 🚀

mountiny · 2025-05-12T20:27:52Z

Conflicts now

eh2077 · 2025-05-13T13:10:36Z

@nkdengineer Please help fix the conflicts, thank you

nkdengineer · 2025-05-13T17:07:57Z

@mountiny Updated.

OSBotify · 2025-05-14T20:55:51Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

github-actions · 2025-05-20T09:59:11Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.1.46-12 🚀

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

nkdengineer added 2 commits April 30, 2025 09:30

fix: expense report disappears from LHN after opening transaction thr…

8d85edf

…ead header in RHP

run prettier

be9df55

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review April 30, 2025 03:39

nkdengineer requested a review from a team as a code owner April 30, 2025 03:39

melvin-bot Bot requested review from eh2077 and removed request for a team April 30, 2025 03:39

eh2077 approved these changes Apr 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from mountiny April 30, 2025 14:42

WojtekBoman reviewed Apr 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

nkdengineer added 2 commits May 5, 2025 15:27

use existing function

1ecd341

run prettier

b172caf

adamgrzybowski reviewed May 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

nkdengineer added 3 commits May 6, 2025 14:50

merge main

5d3bf1a

Merge branch 'main' into fix/60749

ee6de94

add explain comment

d36699b

mountiny assigned nkdengineer May 12, 2025

adamgrzybowski approved these changes May 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny previously approved these changes May 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

resolve conflict

c5903ca

nkdengineer dismissed mountiny’s stale review via c5903ca May 13, 2025 17:07

mountiny approved these changes May 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit c4b0c9d into Expensify:main May 14, 2025
17 checks passed

francoisl mentioned this pull request May 16, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-05-15 #62161

Closed

88 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request May 20, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-05-27] [$250] Expense - Expense report disappears from LHN after opening transaction thread header in RHP #60749

Closed

8 tasks

	if (!parsingRoute.startsWith(addTrailingForwardSlash(ROUTES.REPORT))) {
	return {reportID: '', isSubReportPageRoute: false};
	}

	const pathSegments = parsingRoute.split('/');

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Apr 30, 2025

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented Apr 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

eh2077 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny commented May 12, 2025

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented May 12, 2025

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented May 12, 2025

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

adamgrzybowski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny commented May 12, 2025

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented May 13, 2025

Uh oh!

nkdengineer commented May 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented May 14, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented May 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

eh2077 commented Apr 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading