-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Start chat - List does not scroll to the top after adding a few users to group #55132
Comments
Triggered auto assignment to @blimpich ( |
💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source |
👋 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:
|
most probably coming from this PR #54994 |
I think this is not a regression, but indeed a different bug, as this bug appears on workspace invite page as well: Screen.Recording.2025-01-13.at.14.15.04.movAnd my PR only apply changes to new chat page. |
I can't reproduce the first bug
Can you check with WS invite page?
This issue happens for other pages as well, and I don't think it's an actual bug. Let's assume we have the very long selected list, users expect to see the latest added users (not the first one). |
Added my comments in slack, In my opinion we should call this NAB - for similar reasons above. FYI i believe the scroll / checkmark lag are due to applause's super high traffic accounts |
I agree with @Beamanator, not a blocker and lag is probably due to high traffic account. |
Triggered auto assignment to @OfstadC ( |
@OfstadC this issue is really two sub-issues: (1) the app lags when selecting to "add to a group" in large high traffic accounts and (2) the amount that the app scrolls up upon selecting "add to group" is maybe wrong. Issues states this is the expected behavior: Expected: after adding third member to group, app will scroll to the top of the list Part 1 is a quality bug and should probably be handled as such, but can you help us figure out the 2nd part and what is, in fact, the intended behavior? |
Sure! I can do some testing. I'm online 50% today but I should be able to get to this tomorrow |
@blimpich I was able to reproduce:
corinne++2@ was the first user, then corinne+7 ![]() Then I added corinne+6 which actually did auto-check and move to the top, but corinne++2 was no longer showing ![]() Until I scrolled up: ![]() To me, it feels odd for the third user specifically, but after adding 4, 5, 6 + users it makes sense. I think when scrolling down it's prioritizing showing the list of users/contacts, but once one is selected it's bringing you back to the text box to type a users name/email. |
Yeah it feels odds but I don't know what exactly would feel right. Plus maybe it looks weird on mobile but not as much on desktop. @Expensify/design do you have any input here? |
Tested it locally and it feels a bit weird to me that we're scrolling to only show 2 if you've added more. I think if we scroll up after tapping (Sidenote: I've always found the scroll-to-top when adding a member to be pretty jarring anyways at it requires you to scroll up and down and it's interrupting the users flow, but that's a bigger thing to solve for) |
This is my general thoughts - we make a rule that we always scroll to the top after adding to a group, or we don't. I have mixed feelings on this one - it certainly doesn't feel great, and part of that might be because of that floating referral banner that takes up so much vertical space. But I think the idea behind this was that if you were creating a group, you'd likely be using the search bar to search for members, at which point it made sense that you always floated back to the top since most of your interactions here start after you type a name. But yeah, I tried it locally too and I think we should really be scrolling this the whole way up to the top since that's the current behavior of this flow. |
I definitely agree with this. For the record, I wasn't trying to suggest some sort of conditional scrolling. If anything it almost seems like we're doing that at the moment.
I can see where it's coming from, but this doesn't make heaps of sense to me as you're likely to not even need much of a "jump up" if you type it at the top cause your results are likely to be at the top as you type, vs if you scroll down the list and add manually. Anyways, I think we're on the same page. For this bug though I still kinda think we should stick with the current behavior to avoid too much change but just scroll to the top instead of "almost the top" which seems to be the case in the video at least? Unless I'm missing something 😅 |
Good points all around, but totally agree - in the very least, let's take it to the VERY TOP instead of kinda the top. |
I also have pretty mixed feelings about the scroll behavior 😅 but for this one I am totally down to take you to the very top instead of kinda the top 👍 |
Great! Okay I'm going to split this issue into two, one for the scroll behavior change and one for the lagging since that is probably different root cause and needs a #quality focus. |
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: 9.0.84-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): applausetester+110106kh@applause.expensifail.com
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team
Action Performed:
Expected Result:
Actual Result:
Workaround:
Unknown
Platforms:
Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?
Screenshots/Videos
Add any screenshot/video evidence
Bug6712076_1736627825406.ScreenRecording_01-12-2025_04-31-44_1.1.mp4
View all open jobs on GitHub
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: