[HOLD for payment 2025-01-30] [$250] The checkmark isn't displayed when back to access level page for copilot

[m-natarajan]

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: 9.0.64-4
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?:
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: @DylanDylann
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): ts_external_expensify_bugs

Action Performed:

1. Go to Security Page
2. Add copilot
3. Select an user
4. Select "Full" option
5. Click back button

Expected Result:

The checkmark should be displayed when back to access level page for the access level selected

Actual Result:

The checkmark isn't displayed when back to access level page , selected level is highlighted

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

BUG-copilot.mov

Recording.774.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021869142030241454978
• Upwork Job ID: 1869142030241454978
• Last Price Increase: 2025-01-14
• Automatic offers:
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 105700456

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @anmurali

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @anmurali (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

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

The checkmark isn't displayed when back to access level page

What is the root cause of that problem?

Currently we are using the goBack function here to navigate when the user presses the back button

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/ConfirmDelegatePage.tsx

Line 54 in 376f9f0

onBackButtonPress={() => Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.SETTINGS_DELEGATE_ROLE.getRoute(login, role))}

But before that route params in route were undefined so route.params.role here will be undefined

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/SelectDelegateRolePage.tsx

Line 28 in 376f9f0

isSelected: role === route.params.role,

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

We should set value to role params before we navigate to confirm page

        Navigation.setParams({
            role: option.value,
        });
        Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.SETTINGS_DELEGATE_CONFIRM.getRoute(login, option.value));

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/SelectDelegateRolePage.tsx

Line 59 in 376f9f0

onSelectRow={(option) => {

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Or we can use navigate function instead of goBack function here

[jayeshmangwani]

Proposal

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

The previously selected role isn't displayed as selected when navigating back to the Access Level page using the header back button from the Add Copilot page.

What is the root cause of that problem?

On the SelectDelegateRolePage, we rely on the role parameter from the route passed from the previous screen using this condition:isSelected: role === route.params.role.

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/SelectDelegateRolePage.tsx

Lines 24 to 28 in 4c44827

	const roleOptions = Object.values(CONST.DELEGATE_ROLE).map((role) => ({
	value: role,
	text: translate('delegate.role', {role}),
	alternateText: translate('delegate.roleDescription', {role}),
	isSelected: role === route.params.role,

However, when navigating back from the Add Copilot page using the header back button, the checkmark for the previously selected user isn’t displayed because the parameter isn’t passed in this case. On the other hand, if the "Access Level" item on the Add Copilot page is clicked, the pre-selection is displayed since the parameter is passed during navigation.

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

Instead of relying solely on the route.params.role, we can manage the selection locally using useState. For example:

const [currentRole, setCurrentRole] = useState(route.params.role);

When generating roleOptions, compare the role with currentRole to determine the value of isSelected.

On row selection (onSelectRow), update the local state (setCurrentRole), and then invoke the existing Navigation.navigate method.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Replace Navigation.goBack() with explicit navigation that ensures the necessary parameters are passed. For example:

Navigation.navigate(
  ROUTES.SETTINGS_DELEGATE_ROLE.getRoute(option?.login ?? '')
);

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/AddDelegatePage.tsx

Line 134 in 0029614

onBackButtonPress={() => Navigation.goBack()}

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

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

The checkmark isn't displayed on the previously selected role.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We show the selected icon only if the route params role equals the role itself.

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/SelectDelegateRolePage.tsx

Lines 24 to 28 in 4c44827

	const roleOptions = Object.values(CONST.DELEGATE_ROLE).map((role) => ({
	value: role,
	text: translate('delegate.role', {role}),
	alternateText: translate('delegate.roleDescription', {role}),
	isSelected: role === route.params.role,

But when we open the select role for the first time, the role is undefined. As mentioned by the others, when we press back, we actually call goBack with a fallback of the select role page with the selected role passed to the param.

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/ConfirmDelegatePage.tsx

Line 54 in 4c44827

onBackButtonPress={() => Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.SETTINGS_DELEGATE_ROLE.getRoute(login, role))}

But this just simply goes back, unless you refresh the page first. But the thing I want to focus on here is that I think we shouldn't show the selected icon in a new delegate flow (when we are going to select the role for the first time), just like when you select the delegate user, there is no selected icon. Because it's a single list selection, the selected icon feels like I'm editing the option.

But the reason QA expects the selected icon is maybe because of the highlighted background of the role. It's because we pass shouldUpdateFocusedIndex which updates the focused item to the pressed item.

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/SelectDelegateRolePage.tsx

Line 45 in 4c44827

shouldUpdateFocusedIndex

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

If we agree with what I explain above, then we can remove shouldUpdateFocusedIndex (or set it to false when role is undefined)

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/SelectDelegateRolePage.tsx

Line 45 in 4c44827

shouldUpdateFocusedIndex

And update the confirm role page to not pass the role when going back.

App/src/pages/settings/Security/AddDelegate/ConfirmDelegatePage.tsx

Lines 53 to 54 in 4c44827

	<HeaderPageLayout
	onBackButtonPress={() => Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.SETTINGS_DELEGATE_ROLE.getRoute(login, role))}

[melvin-bot]

@anmurali Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[melvin-bot]

@anmurali Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[melvin-bot]

@anmurali 6 days overdue. This is scarier than being forced to listen to Vogon poetry!

[melvin-bot]

@anmurali 10 days overdue. I'm getting more depressed than Marvin.

[melvin-bot]

@anmurali this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to a solution? Let's make sure we're treating this as a top priority. Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

@anmurali 12 days overdue. Walking. Toward. The. Light...

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 14 days. @anmurali eroding to Weekly issue.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021869142030241454978

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @eh2077 (External)

[melvin-bot]

@anmurali @eh2077 this issue is now 4 weeks old, please consider:

• Finding a contributor to fix the bug
• Closing the issue if BZ has been unable to add the issue to a VIP or Wave project
• If you have any questions, don't hesitate to start a discussion in #expensify-open-source

Thanks!

[nkdengineer]

@eh2077 could you please look at the proposals when you get a chance?

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[melvin-bot]

📣 @nkdengineer 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.88-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: the checkmark isn't displayed when back to access level page #55256

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-01-30. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @eh2077 requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @nkdengineer requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @DylanDylann requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

@eh2077 @anmurali @eh2077 The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[eh2077]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
• 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
• 2d. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

  Link to comment: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/47353/files#r1937423476

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

  Link to discussion: N/A

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

NA

Test:

1. Go to Security Page
2. Add copilot
3. Select an user
4. Select "Full" option
5. Click back button
6. Verify that: The checkmark should be displayed when back to access level page for the access level selected

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable, @anmurali, @eh2077, @nkdengineer Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable, @anmurali, @eh2077, @nkdengineer Still overdue 6 days?! Let's take care of this!

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable, @anmurali, @eh2077, @nkdengineer 10 days overdue. Is anyone even seeing these? Hello?

[eh2077]

@anmurali Friendly bump!

[melvin-bot]

@AndrewGable, @anmurali, @eh2077, @nkdengineer 12 days overdue now... This issue's end is nigh!

[mallenexpensify]

Contributor: @nkdengineer paid $250 via Upwork
Contributor+: @eh2077 due $250 via NewDot

Test case created, thx

• https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/470149

It states above that @DylanDylann is due, it's an error, likely leftover from when we paid for reporting bugs. If I see it happen again I'll create an issue to fix.

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @eh2077