Optimistically add and remove members from admins room #56895

bernhardoj · 2025-02-15T09:01:56Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #56525
PROPOSAL: #56525 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Prerequisite: have a workspace
While offline:

Open workspace members page
Invite new user as admin/auditor
Go to the admins room
Verify the new user is added to the room
Go back to the workspace members page
Remove the user
Go to the admins room
Verify the user is pending remove from the room

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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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.
I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
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.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-emu.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.mweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mp4

melvin-bot · 2025-02-15T09:02:02Z

@s77rt 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]

s77rt

Code looks good. Let's just confirm whether auditors should be members of the #admins room

src/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts

s77rt · 2025-02-15T17:22:06Z

src/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts

+    const adminRoomMembers = removeOptimisticRoomMembers(
+        CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_ADMINS,
+        policy?.id,
+        policy?.name ?? '',
+        accountIDs.filter((accountID) => {
+            const login = allPersonalDetails?.[accountID]?.login;
+            return login && policy?.employeeList?.[login]?.role !== CONST.POLICY.ROLE.USER;
+        }),
+    );


Are AUDITORs members of the #admins room too? Asking because I don't see them mentioned here https://github.com/Expensify/App?tab=readme-ov-file#workspace-admin-room

Asked in slack https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1739640700642219

The BE adds auditor as the admins member, so I guess yes.

I think we should compare with role === ADMIN || role === AUDITOR to account for further changes in case another role is added

Fair point. Updated.

s77rt · 2025-02-16T16:33:27Z

src/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts

+    const adminRoomMembers = removeOptimisticRoomMembers(
+        CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_ADMINS,
+        policy?.id,
+        policy?.name ?? '',
+        accountIDs.filter((accountID) => {
+            const login = allPersonalDetails?.[accountID]?.login;
+            return login && policy?.employeeList?.[login]?.role !== CONST.POLICY.ROLE.USER;
+        }),
+    );


I think we should compare with role === ADMIN || role === AUDITOR to account for further changes in case another role is added

s77rt · 2025-02-16T16:42:31Z

tests/actions/PolicyMemberTest.ts

+    describe('removeMembers', () => {
+        it('Remove members with admin/auditor role from the #admins room', async () => {


Can you extend the test to verify the report participants

The remove onyx data doesn't change the participants.

App/src/libs/actions/Policy/Member.ts

Lines 254 to 304 in ee29bcc

announceRoomMembers.onyxOptimisticData.push(

{

onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,

key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${announceReport.reportID}`,

value: {

...(accountIDs.includes(sessionAccountID)

? {

statusNum: CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.CLOSED,

stateNum: CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.APPROVED,

oldPolicyName: policyName,

}

: {}),

},

},

{

onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,

key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_METADATA}${announceReport.reportID}`,

value: {

pendingChatMembers,

},

},

);

announceRoomMembers.onyxFailureData.push(

{

onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,

key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${announceReport.reportID}`,

value: {

...(accountIDs.includes(sessionAccountID)

? {

statusNum: announceReport.statusNum,

stateNum: announceReport.stateNum,

oldPolicyName: announceReport.oldPolicyName,

}

: {}),

},

},

{

onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,

key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_METADATA}${announceReport.reportID}`,

value: {

pendingChatMembers: announceReportMetadata?.pendingChatMembers ?? null,

},

},

);

announceRoomMembers.onyxSuccessData.push({

onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,

key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_METADATA}${announceReport.reportID}`,

value: {

pendingChatMembers: announceReportMetadata?.pendingChatMembers ?? null,

},

});

s77rt · 2025-02-16T16:56:39Z

The admins are not removed optimistically

Screen.Recording.2025-02-16.at.5.46.12.PM.mov

bernhardoj · 2025-02-17T04:44:46Z

The admins are not removed optimistically

The remove optimistic data only mark it as pending remove. The one that will really remove it should come from the BE, but BE currently doesn't do that, which is why I done my test while offline to see if the member is strikethrough-ed.

This is the admins room participants onyx update

This is the announce room participants onyx update

s77rt · 2025-02-17T11:05:03Z

@bernhardoj The marked to be deleted members should be filtered out from the members list.

You may want to check calls to getParticipantsAccountIDsForDisplay and getParticipantsList or check the group members logic

bernhardoj · 2025-02-17T12:32:28Z

Are you suggesting removing the members from participants on successData?

s77rt · 2025-02-17T12:54:58Z

No, we can keep the members in the participants object but when it comes to display the participants only display those that are not marked to be deleted. Check getGroupChatName it has a similar logic.

bernhardoj · 2025-02-17T13:09:14Z

If we filter it out, then we won't be able to see the member getting strikethrough (while offline). Why we want to filter it out?

s77rt · 2025-02-17T13:25:23Z

The filter should be done only when online. For ref

App/src/pages/ReportParticipantsPage.tsx

Lines 93 to 106 in 8aead3f

    
           const chatParticipants = getParticipantsList(report, personalDetails); 
        
           const pendingChatMembers = reportMetadata?.pendingChatMembers; 
        
           const reportParticipants = report?.participants; 
        
           // Get the active chat members by filtering out the pending members with delete action 
        
           const activeParticipants = chatParticipants.filter((accountID) => { 
        
               const pendingMember = pendingChatMembers?.findLast((member) => member.accountID === accountID.toString()); 
        
               if (!personalDetails?.[accountID]) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               // When offline, we want to include the pending members with delete action as they are displayed in the list as well 
        
               return !pendingMember || isOffline || pendingMember.pendingAction !== CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.DELETE; 
        
           });

Why we want to filter it out?

The UI should reflect the user actions immediately without the need to wait for BE response.

bernhardoj · 2025-02-18T03:14:38Z

The filter should be done only when online

The pending remove user should be hidden because of OfflineWithFeedback, so we don't need to filter it out.

s77rt · 2025-02-18T12:26:45Z

Currently they are not hidden #56895 (comment) Can you please look into that?

bernhardoj · 2025-02-18T12:55:20Z

They are hidden. From your video, the remove API is likely already successful, so the pending chat members are removed.

asd.mp4

The member doesn't reappear because there is current a BE bug where the onyx update for report use SET method.

s77rt · 2025-02-18T15:24:50Z

Ah right this is working as expected

Screen.Recording.2025-02-18.at.4.22.07.PM.mov

s77rt · 2025-02-18T15:26:41Z

Can you please fix the same for changing the user role to a member?

Screen.Recording.2025-02-18.at.4.23.39.PM.mov

bernhardoj · 2025-02-18T16:34:53Z

#54792 should handle it

s77rt · 2025-02-18T21:46:53Z

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 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.ts 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
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

Build issues. NAB

Android: mWeb Chrome

mweb-chrome.mov

iOS: Native

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

mweb-safari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

desktop.mov

OSBotify · 2025-02-18T22:23:11Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

github-actions · 2025-02-19T03:41:52Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/iwiznia in version: 9.1.1-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	success ✅
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	success ✅

bernhardoj added 3 commits February 15, 2025 16:40

optimistically add and remove members from admins room

feff0a1

update test

906fc7c

uncomment test

de3d1fc

bernhardoj requested a review from a team as a code owner February 15, 2025 09:01

melvin-bot bot requested review from s77rt and removed request for a team February 15, 2025 09:02

lint

2223f0e

s77rt reviewed Feb 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

update comment

76f7c94

s77rt suggested changes Feb 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

update the condition to be more specific

a91abcc

s77rt approved these changes Feb 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from iwiznia February 18, 2025 21:49

iwiznia approved these changes Feb 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

iwiznia merged commit 9e6e31e into Expensify:main Feb 18, 2025
17 of 19 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-02-19 #57066

Open

51 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Optimistically add and remove members from admins room #56895

Optimistically add and remove members from admins room #56895

bernhardoj commented Feb 15, 2025

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 15, 2025

s77rt left a comment

s77rt Feb 15, 2025

s77rt Feb 15, 2025

bernhardoj Feb 16, 2025

s77rt Feb 16, 2025

bernhardoj Feb 17, 2025

s77rt Feb 16, 2025

s77rt Feb 16, 2025

bernhardoj Feb 17, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 16, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 17, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 17, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 17, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 17, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

s77rt commented Feb 17, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 18, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 18, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 18, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 18, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 18, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 18, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 18, 2025

OSBotify commented Feb 18, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 19, 2025

		describe('removeMembers', () => {
		it('Remove members with admin/auditor role from the #admins room', async () => {

	announceRoomMembers.onyxOptimisticData.push(
	{
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${announceReport.reportID}`,
	value: {
	...(accountIDs.includes(sessionAccountID)
	? {
	statusNum: CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.CLOSED,
	stateNum: CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.APPROVED,
	oldPolicyName: policyName,
	}
	: {}),
	},
	},
	{
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_METADATA}${announceReport.reportID}`,
	value: {
	pendingChatMembers,
	},
	},
	);
	announceRoomMembers.onyxFailureData.push(
	{
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${announceReport.reportID}`,
	value: {
	...(accountIDs.includes(sessionAccountID)
	? {
	statusNum: announceReport.statusNum,
	stateNum: announceReport.stateNum,
	oldPolicyName: announceReport.oldPolicyName,
	}
	: {}),
	},
	},
	{
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_METADATA}${announceReport.reportID}`,
	value: {
	pendingChatMembers: announceReportMetadata?.pendingChatMembers ?? null,
	},
	},
	);
	announceRoomMembers.onyxSuccessData.push({
	onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
	key: `${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_METADATA}${announceReport.reportID}`,
	value: {
	pendingChatMembers: announceReportMetadata?.pendingChatMembers ?? null,
	},
	});

Optimistically add and remove members from admins room #56895

Optimistically add and remove members from admins room #56895

Conversation

bernhardoj commented Feb 15, 2025

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 15, 2025

s77rt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

s77rt commented Feb 16, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 17, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 17, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 17, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 17, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 17, 2025 • edited Loading

s77rt commented Feb 17, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 18, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 18, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 18, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 18, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 18, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 18, 2025

s77rt commented Feb 18, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

OSBotify commented Feb 18, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 19, 2025

bernhardoj commented Feb 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading