Update hold flow on the search page

[cretadn22]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #46524
PROPOSAL: #46524 (comment)

Tests

1. Go to Search page
2. Click on Outstanding tab
3. Click on any request
4. Click on the report header
5. Verify that the hold/unhold actions in the report header work well

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

1. Go to Search page
2. Click on Outstanding tab
3. Click on any request
4. Click on the report header
5. Verify that the hold/unhold actions in the report header work well

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• 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
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen210.mov

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@jjcoffee 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]

[jjcoffee]

We need failureData too in case the API request doesn't succeed.

[jjcoffee]

I think we should probably also:

1. Add an explanatory comment here
2. Only do these optimistic updates for the issue's case, e.g. via a new param isSingleTransaction
3. Optimistically add the comment to IOU's report (this can probably be copied from HoldRequest as this is what currently happens on staging when (un/)holding whilst offline)
   

[cretadn22]

@jjcoffee If we add a comment to the report optimistically, the backend returns the same comment, resulting in a duplicate. To do that, we need to update the backend to return the same optimistic reportActionID so that we no longer get a duplicate comment.

[cretadn22]

@jjcoffee I prefer not to add comments optimistically. Do you agree to remove optimistic report action?

[jjcoffee]

Yeah it doesn't seem useful if it gets duplicated. Let's revert for now whilst we decide on the approach.

[jjcoffee]

BUG: The original issue still happens, if you initially tick the expense and then open the transaction and hold it, coming back the bulk action still shows Hold. Unticking and ticking again then shows the correct value in the bulk action dropdown.

desktop-chrome-2024-09-18_12.15.55.mp4

[cretadn22]

@jjcoffee This is only the draft change to test. If we agree with this approach totally. I will complete the PR and tag you for reviewing

[cretadn22]

BUG: The original issue still happens, if you initially tick the expense and then open the transaction and hold it, coming back the bulk action still shows Hold. Unticking and ticking again then shows the correct value in the bulk action dropdown.

@jjcoffee For this bug, we're not resetting the selectedTransaction data in the search context when the new value is updated, resulting in outdated information.

My solution is to reset the selected transaction whenever the user clicks the hold/unhold option.

[jjcoffee]

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[jjcoffee]

My solution is to reset the selected transaction whenever the user clicks the hold/unhold option.

@cretadn22 By reset, do you mean any selected transaction(s) would be deselected?

[cretadn22]

@cretadn22 By reset, do you mean any selected transaction(s) would be deselected?

@jjcoffee Yess

[jjcoffee]

@cretadn22 This is maybe a bit of a derail but since this approach is getting quite convoluted, I'm wondering if a simpler approach is to update the snapshot_ Onyx data optimistically from the transaction modal (and obviously reset it on failure). This way we avoid all the issues that have come up from switching to use holdMoneyRequestOnSearch. I can't think of any obvious downsides, any thoughts?

[jjcoffee]

@cretadn22 By reset, do you mean any selected transaction(s) would be deselected?

@jjcoffee Yess

I'm not sure if that would be expected, but I think we can argue that it's out of scope of this issue since it already happens on main even when just bulk selecting and holding an expense (the dropdown doesn't reflect the updated state). So it's a bit of a separate issue, I think.

[cretadn22]

, I'm wondering if a simpler approach is to update the snapshot_ Onyx data optimistically from the transaction modal (and obviously reset it on failure).

@jjcoffee Could you please provide a more detailed explanation of this comment?

[jjcoffee]

@cretadn22 The RCA is that the search page header uses a different key (snapshot_{searchHash}) to gather the hold status (e.g. canHold) of the transaction. So I'm wondering why we can't just update that Onyx data in the optimisticData when calling IOU.(un/)holdRequest. We have the searchHash and the transactionID so I think it should be possible?

[cretadn22]

@jjcoffee From what I observed, SearchPageHeader only use data from useSearchContext hook. And the data in useSearchContext hook is outdated and caused this problem. Is this what you mean?

[jjcoffee]

SearchPageHeader only use data from useSearchContext hook

This data originally comes from the snapshot_ key though right? There are two separate issues, I think:

1. SearchPageHeader uses a separate Onyx key (snapshot_) via useSearchContext to get data about the transactions. The API call we currently use from the transaction detail view does not update that data, only the actual transaction data (transaction_${transactionID}). This is what we want to focus on solving first, and I'm wondering if we can solve it by updating the snapshot Onyx data directly.
2. The data for the selected transactions in useSearchContext doesn't get updated when the snapshot_ data is updated (e.g. on main/live bulk when selecting and holding an expense the dropdown doesn't reflect the updated state). This seems out of scope for this issue unless there's an obvious and easy solution.

[cretadn22]

@jjcoffee

SearchPageHeader uses a separate Onyx key (snapshot_) via useSearchContext to get data about the transactions. The API call we currently use from the transaction detail view does not update that data, only the actual transaction data (transaction_${transactionID}). This is what we want to focus on solving first, and I'm wondering if we can solve it by updating the snapshot Onyx data directly.

I still see that we’re updating the correct Onyx key with the proper hash, but I’m not entirely sure I fully understand your point. To clarify further, could you please share a video that shows this bug?

[jjcoffee]

@cretadn22 I'm proposing an alternative approach, not reporting a bug. So taking a look at these steps:

1. Go to Search page
2. Click on Outstanding tab
3. Click on any (unheld) expense
4. Click on the report header to open the expense detail view
5. Tap on Hold
6. Go back to the Search page
7. Select the same request as in (3) and open the bulk action dropdown (1 selected)
8. Verify that Unhold is shown

In step 5 I'm proposing we switch back to using IOU.holdRequest, and to optimistically update the relevant snapshot data. This will mean that step 8 should work as the header will read from that snapshot data.

[cretadn22]

@jjcoffee Got it, I misunderstood your point earlier. I'll give your new approach a try and give a feedback soon

[cretadn22]

I just created a new pull request to implement @jjcoffee's approach. I’ll mark it as ready once I’ve thoroughly tested it. If this approach is fine, we can close this one