[Due for payment 2025-02-27] The type and status portion of the router does not use the correct darker text color

[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: 9.0.95-1
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: @shawnborton
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): Expense

Action Performed:

1. Navigate to report search > Expenses
2. Click Search and enter anything to search

Expected Result:

The type and status portion of the router use the correct darker text color

Actual Result:

The type and status portion of the router does not use the correct darker text color

Workaround:

Can the user still use Expensify without this being fixed? Have you informed them of the workaround?

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

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @OfstadC

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @OfstadC (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.

[linhvovan29546]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-02-08 03:25:54 UTC.

Proposal

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

The type and status portion of the router does not use the correct darker text color

What is the root cause of that problem?

In SearchAutocompleteInput, we use a markdown input.

App/src/components/Search/SearchAutocompleteInput.tsx

Line 213 in b0b7709

type="markdown"

And the styling is applied via the useMarkdownStyle hook. useMarkdownStyle uses syntax color, and in light mode, the color is set to productLight800, which appears lighter than expected.

App/src/hooks/useMarkdownStyle.ts

Lines 30 to 32 in b0b7709

	syntax: {
	color: theme.syntax,
	},

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

We can update the syntax color in light mode to a darker text color, such as productLight900, but this change would apply to all markdown inputs.

App/src/styles/theme/themes/light.ts

Line 25 in b0b7709

syntax: colors.productLight800,

A safer solution is to introduce a new prop styles, to override markdownStyle.

App/src/hooks/useMarkdownStyle.ts

Lines 29 to 32 in b0b7709

	const styling = {
	syntax: {
	color: theme.syntax,
	},

function useMarkdownStyle(message: string | null = null, excludeStyles: Array<keyof MarkdownStyle> = defaultEmptyArray, styles)
....
            syntax: {
                color: theme.syntax,
                ...styles?.syntax,
            },

// Alternatively, we can override it like this:
if (styles) {
    Object.keys(styles).forEach((key) => {
        if (styles[key]) {
            // Merge nested objects
            styling[key] = { ...styling[key], ...styles[key] };
        }
    });
}

Then, in SearchAutocompleteInput, we can override the markdown style like this:

markdownStyle={{syntax:{color:theme.darkerColor}}} //The color based on design 

App/src/components/TextInput/BaseTextInput/index.tsx

Line 89 in b0b7709

const markdownStyle = useMarkdownStyle(undefined, excludedMarkdownStyles);

and native as well

    const markdownStyle = useMarkdownStyle(undefined, excludedMarkdownStyles,inputProps?.markdownStyle);

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

N/A, UI bug

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A
Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[samranahm]

Related to #56560

[289Adam289]

Hi, I am Adam from SWM and I would like to work on this issue. It is a regression from my PR #56243

cc @luacmartins for visibility

[OfstadC]

Thanks @289Adam289 !

[luacmartins]

@289Adam289 before you start working on this. Let's first agree on the expected behavior since this is the expected behavior described in the design doc.

[shawnborton]

The only thing I think we need to change is just change the color from textSupporting to our regular text color. Any normal text that's in the router should just use our normal text color.

[289Adam289]

We've added quite a bit of code just to change syntax color to textSupporting. Could you confirm if the decision on supportingText color is intended to be permanent. If so I think there's no point in keeping this logic in the codebase and I will go ahead and remove it. Other wise just changing the color should be enough.
@luacmartins @shawnborton

[shawnborton]

I feel quite strongly that using the gray text was a mistake, so I would love it if we could revert this back to our normal text color. I think we're still waiting for @JmillsExpensify to chime in though.

[melvin-bot]

@OfstadC, @luacmartins, @289Adam289 Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[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 9.1.1-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Revert syntax range color back to black #56869

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-02-27. 🎊

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

• @289Adam289 does not require payment (Contractor)

[melvin-bot]

@luacmartins @OfstadC @289Adam289 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]

[ikevin127]

Let's first agree on the expected behavior since this is the expected behavior described in the design doc.

@luacmartins Should I receive payment for the review of the revert PR given that the revert wasn't performed due to a mistake / lack of testing from author / reviewer but rather a mistake in the design doc ? 🤔

[luacmartins]

Yea, you should

[ikevin127]

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: Design doc mismatch.

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: Not needed since this issue occured due to a mistake in the design doc, see #56559 (comment) for details.

• [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:

Not need for a regression test since this issue occured due to a mistake in the design doc, see #56559 (comment) for details.

[melvin-bot]

Skipping the payment summary for this issue since all the assignees are employees or vendors. If this is incorrect, please manually add the payment summary SO.

[ikevin127]

Incorrect, I require payment for reviewing the PR - confirmed here, BZ Checklist completed ✅

[luacmartins]

@ikevin127 assigned you to the issue. @OfstadC we need to process payment to @ikevin127 for the PR review.

[OfstadC]

@ikevin127 - Offer sent here

[ikevin127]

@OfstadC Offer accepted, thank you!

[OfstadC]

Payment Summary

• @289Adam289 does not require payment (Contractor)
• @ikevin127 paid $250 via Upwork