[HOLD for payment 2023-07-06] [HOLD App#20694] mWeb - Task - Assignees email is beyond the screen

[kbecciv]

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

---

Issue found when executing PR #20032

Action Performed:

1. Open NewDot on mWeb
2. Go to any chat
3. Create a task and assign it to account with long email
4. Go to chat again

Expected Result:

Assignee email should be within the frame

Actual Result:

Assignee email is beyond the frame

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android / native
• Android / Chrome
• iOS / native
• iOS / Safari
• MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• MacOS / Desktop

Version Number: 1.3.26.1

Reproducible in staging?: Yes

Reproducible in production?: No

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

Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

Bug6087884_video_72__2_.mp4

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Slack conversation:

View all open jobs on GitHub

[OSBotify]

👋 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 @Beamanator (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[kbecciv]

Issue is not reproduced in production

[situchan]

I managed to find the offending PR which introduced this bug: #20114
I have solution to fix both #19717 and #19934 but as this is within regression period, I think they will handle this.
It seems like that PR caused several regressions. Maybe better fully revert.