[HOLD for payment 2024-07-10] [HOLD for payment 2024-07-02] LOW: [$500] Stop using `reportAction.originalMessage` or `reportAction.message.text`

[quinthar]

Problem:

Each comment in the server database is stored in reportAction.message in HTML form. However, for some reason lost to time, when we send that same comment out as an Onyx update, we:

1. Rename the original message in the database to reportAction.originalMessage in the update (which is confusing)
2. Create a new message object that contains a copy of the html message, as well as a stripped text version.
3. Put the message object inside a totally unnecessary one-element array

That means every comment is actually sent out three times (four, if you include the update to the report object, but that's out of scope for now). This is clearly wasteful in a number of ways:

1. It requires postprocessing on the server to do this extraneous operation
2. It increases network bandwidth by 3x
3. It increases RAM use 3x
4. It increases on-device storage 3x
5. It's confusing AF

Additionally, it's particularly problematic when sending Onyx updates out via UrbanAirship, which is extremely limited in the payload sizes allowed -- with anything over a certain limit just dropped quietly and never delivered, causing "gaps" in our update stream (which require more network calls to "backfill" the Onyx data on app open, which makes things slow). Basically, this was just a mistake introduced for reasons we can't remember, but that we want to undo.

Solution:

To solve this, please:

1. Phase 1 (External / clientside): Stop using originalMessage, start using array-message
   1. Update every instance of originalMessage.html to use message.html || message[0].html
   2. Update every instance of message.text to dynamically strip the text from message.html || message[0].html
   3. Update every key within originalMessage to use the original message
2. Phase 2 (Internal / serverside): Once we've confirmed the client no longer uses originalMessage or message.text or any other key within originalMessage:
   1. Stop sending originalMessage
   2. Start sending message without an array
3. Phase 3 (External / clientside): Remove checking for "array message"

This issue is for phase 1 and phase 3.

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01856d1399295ef760
• Upwork Job ID: 1776729925881405440
• Last Price Increase: 2024-07-12
• Automatic offers:
• cubuspl42 | Reviewer | 0

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @puneetlath

[muttmuure]

Is this being worked on?

[thienlnam]

Still in review - pending a review from @roryabraham. Dropping my assignment since I'm not adding much value as a reviewer here

[melvin-bot[bot]]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

⚠️ Looks like this issue was linked to a Deploy Blocker here

If you are the assigned CME please investigate whether the linked PR caused a regression and leave a comment with the results.

If a regression has occurred and you are the assigned CM follow the instructions here.

If this regression could have been avoided please consider also proposing a recommendation to the PR checklist so that we can avoid it in the future.

[melvin-bot[bot]]

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

[melvin-bot[bot]]

The solution for this issue has been :rocket: deployed to production :rocket: in version 9.0.1-19 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period :calendar:. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/40168
• https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/44365

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-02. :confetti_ball:

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

• @c3024 requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)
• @nkdengineer requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot[bot]]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [ ] [@c3024] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [ ] [@c3024] 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:
• [ ] [@c3024] A discussion in #expensify-bugs 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:
• [ ] [@c3024] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [ ] [@c3024] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [ ] [@puneetlath] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @c3024 paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)
• ROLE: @nkdengineer paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@puneetlath)

• [ ] I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• [ ] I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1776729925881405440/hired)
• [ ] I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• [ ] I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[puneetlath]

@c3024 bump on the checklist so we can pay you. Can you also link me your Upwork profile so I can send you a job?

@nkdengineer Upwork offer here: https://www.upwork.com/nx/wm/offer/102963265. Ping me on the issue when you've accepted.

[c3024]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [x] [@c3024] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: This is an improvement and not a bug.
• [x] [@c3024] 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: NA
• [x] [@c3024] A discussion in #expensify-bugs 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: No since this is not a bug.
• [x] [@c3024] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. No, this touches several parts of the repo. There are individual regression tests for individual cases.
• [x] [@c3024] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again. NA

[c3024]

bump on the checklist so we can pay you.

Done

Can you also link me your Upwork profile so I can send you a job?

Here it is - https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~0105555e2f227dbf47

Can the pay be bumped up here? This is a large PR touching many files and there were some big revisions as well. Thanks!

[melvin-bot[bot]]

The solution for this issue has been :rocket: deployed to production :rocket: in version 9.0.3-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period :calendar:. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/40168
• https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/44365

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-10. :confetti_ball:

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

• @c3024 requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)
• @nkdengineer requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot[bot]]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [ ] [@c3024] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [ ] [@c3024] 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:
• [ ] [@c3024] A discussion in #expensify-bugs 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:
• [ ] [@c3024] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [ ] [@c3024] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [ ] [@puneetlath] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• ROLE: @c3024 paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)
• ROLE: @nkdengineer paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@puneetlath)

• [x] I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• [x] I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1776729925881405440/hired)
• [x] I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• [x] I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Upwork job price has been updated to $500

[puneetlath]

@nkdengineer please accept offer here: https://www.upwork.com/nx/wm/offer/103096930 @c3024 please accept offer here: https://www.upwork.com/nx/wm/offer/103096934

Both of you, please ping me on this issue when you've accepted.

[c3024]

@puneetlath thanks, accepted!

[puneetlath]

@c3024 has been paid. Just waiting for you now @nkdengineer.

[nkdengineer]

@puneetlath Accepted thanks 🙇

[puneetlath]

All paid. Thanks everyone!