Closed m-natarajan closed 1 month ago
Triggered auto assignment to @techievivek (DeployBlockerCash
), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.
Triggered auto assignment to @zanyrenney (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.
:wave: Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive β± 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:
@techievivek FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors
We think that this bug might be related to #vip-vsb
The row is not grayed out when added offline. This also applies to List values editor for List report field.
We don't add the pendingAction
field when we get the list report fields here
We should add pendingAction
here when we get the list report field to apply the gray out style when this report field is added/edited offline.
Row is not grayed out when added/edited offline
When creating a report field we are adding a pendingAction
to pendingFileds
of a policy with fieldKey
here
https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/83eb7e6ee5f8a86c4500deda3454763680dcd5cf/src/libs/actions/Policy/ReportFields.ts#L162-L163
But when creating a reportFieldList here and pass it selection list we are not including pendingField
added to the policy as a 'pendingAction' prop
https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/83eb7e6ee5f8a86c4500deda3454763680dcd5cf/src/pages/workspace/reportFields/WorkspaceReportFieldsPage.tsx#L67-L73
[reportKey, reportField
pendingAction: policy?.pendingFields[reportKey] ?? null
below
https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/83eb7e6ee5f8a86c4500deda3454763680dcd5cf/src/pages/workspace/reportFields/WorkspaceReportFieldsPage.tsx#L67-L73
Result:
https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/171434916/4b4f3f3d-1975-4f5d-a5e9-ea9bc619fa69
Adding a C+ so they can review the above proposals and help us fix this ASAP.
Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~018389cb0ae25e3928
Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @mollfpr (External
)
Both proposal has the correct RCA, but the @etCoderDysto proposal has more detail for the implementation.
I'll suggest we go with @etCoderDysto proposal.
π π π C+ reviewed!
Current assignee @techievivek is eligible for the choreEngineerContributorManagement assigner, not assigning anyone new.
@mollfpr I don't think we need more detail here, I also referred the way to get the pending action here in my proposal.
π£ @etCoderDysto You have been assigned to this job! Please apply to the Upwork job and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review π§βπ» Once you apply to this job, your Upwork ID will be stored and you will be automatically hired for future jobs! Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing π
Raising a PR now.
@techievivek I believe my proposal is detail enough. I referred the way we merge the pending field and I think it's enough to know how we can get this.
I don't think we need more detail here, I also referred the way to get the pending action here in my proposal.
Yeah, I understand that, but proposing a detailed solution is very helpful for the reviewer.
We should add pendingAction here when we get the list report field to apply the gray out style when this report field is added/edited offline.
My weighing point is your solution doesn't have much information on how we can get the pendingFields
into the mapping. I believe you already have the implementation in mind, but it would be great if you put more detail to understand the solution you proposing. A detailed solution is great and gives you a chance to win the issue.
Yeah, I understand that, but proposing a detailed solution is very helpful for the reviewer.
@mollfpr Thanks for your feedback, I think this issue is straight forward and the implement detail (the way to get the pendingFields
, I also referred the way we merged the pendingFields
for report field in Onyx and it's good to know how we can get this) is very simply so it can be done in the PR phrase. The detailer is good but I don't think it's not enough to make a proposal more weight in this case. If the issue is complex, I agree with that.
@mollfpr PR is ready for review
Report fields is behind a beta and this is. a minor UI issue. Gonna remove the blocker label.
Happy to take this over as I am leading the report fields configuration project
Noting $50 payment to @mollfpr for their help on this issue
@techievivek with @shubham1206agra and @rezkiy37 @waterim we have discussed handling the offline feedback differently than its done now https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C06ML6X0W9L/p1720172553875929?thread_ts=1719874235.982839&cid=C06ML6X0W9L and we are going to handle it in the report fields configation PRs from Callstack.
As such I think we can provide a partial compensation to @mollfpr and @etCoderDysto for their time $50 each
@mountiny sounds good to me. Thanks.
Payment summary: $50 each to @mollfpr and @etCoderDysto, once payment is made, we close this out. cc @zanyrenney
$50 approved for @mollfpr
Reviewing
label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".
The solution for this issue has been :rocket: deployed to production :rocket: in version 9.0.5-13 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period :calendar:. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:
If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-17. :confetti_ball:
For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:
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:
The solution for this issue has been :rocket: deployed to production :rocket: in version 9.0.6-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period :calendar:. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:
If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-07-22. :confetti_ball:
For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:
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:
Hi @mollfpr @mountiny @techievivek can you check and see if this deploy blocker relates to this PR? https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/45461
β οΈ 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.
cc @shubham1206agra https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/44798#issuecomment-2231369866
bump @shubham1206agra can you review the comment above as this is being raised as a deploy blocker?
@zanyrenney Already addressed here https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/45461#issuecomment-2233928218
Ah great, thank you!
I'll move ahead with the payments in this case ππΌ
have asked @etCoderDysto to apply to job for payout
Payments will be handled later at one place for this.
Ah okay that's not what the payment summary says:
But happy to go with that then. I will close this one out!
@zanyrenney Only mollfpr is paid. I am not paid yet. And here is the payment summary
$50 each to @mollfpr and @etCoderDysto, once payment is made, we close this out. cc @zanyrenney
Cool, payment summary: @mollfpr requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests - paid via ND @etCoderDysto requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ) - paid $50 via UPwork.
If you havenβt already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!
Version Number: 9.0.4.0 Reproducible in staging?: y Reproducible in production?: no new feature 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): n/a Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856 Expensify/Expensify Issue URL: Issue reported by: Applause internal team Slack conversation:
Action Performed:
Expected Result:
The row will be grayed out when added offline.
Actual Result:
The row is not grayed out when added offline. This also applies to List values editor for List report field.
Workaround:
unknown
Platforms:
Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?
Screenshots/Videos
https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/38435837/9e99c34c-8da0-47b2-bd42-ff4d21986c4a
View all open jobs on GitHub
Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit
Issue Owner
Current Issue Owner: @zanyrenney