[HOLD for payment 2024-01-26] [$500] Threads - User is redirected to Concierge instead of room when leaving thread in room chat

[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!

---

Version Number: v1.4.21-1
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: y
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. Go to 1:1 DM.
2. Send a message and create a thread reply.
3. In the thread, click 3-dot menu > Leave thread.
4. Go to a room.
5. Send a message and create a thread reply.
6. In the thread, click 3-dot menu > Leave thread.

Expected Result:

User is redirected to the main room chat because user only leaves the thread and not the room.

Actual Result:

Instead of being redirected to the room chat, user is redirected to Concierge.

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

Bug6331374_1704295640273.bandicam_2024-01-03_16-43-05-627__1_.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0161fe76234b280e52
• Upwork Job ID: 1742580096727760896
• Last Price Increase: 2024-01-10
• Automatic offers:
• Ollyws | Reviewer | 2809638
• paultsimura | Contributor | 28096385

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0161fe76234b280e52

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[melvin-bot]

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

[dukenv0307]

Proposal

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

Instead of being redirected to the room chat, user is redirected to Concierge.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We are navigating to concierge chat if we leave the workspace room or thread of this.

App/src/libs/actions/Report.ts

Lines 2129 to 2133 in 3826e5d

	const participantAccountIDs = PersonalDetailsUtils.getAccountIDsByLogins([CONST.EMAIL.CONCIERGE]);
	const chat = ReportUtils.getChatByParticipants(participantAccountIDs);
	if (chat?.reportID) {
	Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(chat.reportID));
	}

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

We should check if report.parentReportID exists we should navigate to the parent report instead of concierge chat.

const report = ReportUtils.getReport(reportID);
if (report?.parentReportID) {
    Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.HOME);
    Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(report.parentReportID));
    return;
}

App/src/libs/actions/Report.ts

Lines 2129 to 2133 in 3826e5d

	const participantAccountIDs = PersonalDetailsUtils.getAccountIDsByLogins([CONST.EMAIL.CONCIERGE]);
	const chat = ReportUtils.getChatByParticipants(participantAccountIDs);
	if (chat?.reportID) {
	Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(chat.reportID));
	}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

Result

Screen.Recording.2024-01-03.at.23.26.27.mov

[paultsimura]

Proposal

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

On leaving a thread in room, the user is navigated to Concierge.

What is the root cause of that problem?

In Report.leaveRoom, we navigate to the Concierge chat if we are leaving the room:

App/src/libs/actions/Report.ts

Lines 2126 to 2132 in b3fe02a

	if (isWorkspaceMemberLeavingWorkspaceRoom) {
	const participantAccountIDs = PersonalDetailsUtils.getAccountIDsByLogins([CONST.EMAIL.CONCIERGE]);
	const chat = ReportUtils.getChatByParticipants(participantAccountIDs);
	if (chat?.reportID) {
	Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(chat.reportID));
	}
	}

However, the isWorkspaceMemberLeavingWorkspaceRoom passed into this function is calculated incorrectly: it does not count that inside rooms, we also can have threads.

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

Here, we should also check if the report we're about to leave is not a thread:

const isWorkspaceMemberLeavingWorkspaceRoom = !isChatThread && lodashGet(props.report, 'visibility', '') === CONST.REPORT.VISIBILITY.RESTRICTED && isPolicyMember

App/src/pages/home/HeaderView.js

Lines 153 to 154 in fabb0b0

	} else if ((isChatThread && props.report.notificationPreference.length) || isUserCreatedPolicyRoom || canLeaveRoom) {
	const isWorkspaceMemberLeavingWorkspaceRoom = lodashGet(props.report, 'visibility', '') === CONST.REPORT.VISIBILITY.RESTRICTED && isPolicyMember;

Result:

Screen.Recording.2024-01-03.at.17.45.56-compressed.mp4

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[miljakljajic]

@Ollyws any thoughts on the two proposals?