[HOLD for payment 2024-08-19] [HOLD for payment 2024-06-20] [HOLD for payment 2024-06-18] Thread - Blue "Thread" above the parent message in thread is disable

[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: 1.4.80-1
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: no
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/4601125&group_by=cases:section_id&group_order=asc&group_id=291937
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause internal team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to any chat.
3. Send a message.
4. Right click on the message > Reply in thread.

Expected Result:

The blue "Thread" above the parent message should be clickable (production behavior).

Actual Result:

The blue "Thread" above the parent message is disable.

Workaround:

unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6504084_1717688964698.20240606_234728.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @twisterdotcom

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @twisterdotcom (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.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @marcochavezf (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[github-actions]

👋 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:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[m-natarajan]

@marcochavezf 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

[m-natarajan]

We think that this bug might be related to #vip-vsb

[neil-marcellini]

Fixed by [CP Staging] Revert "Fix get all ancestors in a thread"

Screen.Recording.2024-06-06.at.11.06.34.AM.mov

[kmbcook]

Proposal

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

Thread - Blue "Thread" above the parent message in thread is disabled.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The root cause stems from #34640 where ReportUtils.getAllAncestorReportActions was originally written. We now know this because fixing that root cause in #42554 causes this issue. See #41519 (comment) for details.

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

Address the root cause by using the correct ancestor, instead of leaving the root cause in place and reverting #42554.

Do this by making the following changes: in all three lines of code below change ancestor.report.parentReportID to ancestor.report.reportID.

App/src/pages/home/report/ThreadDivider.tsx

Line 52 in 774a3ec

Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(ancestor.report.parentReportID ?? ''));

App/src/pages/home/report/ThreadDivider.tsx

Line 55 in 774a3ec

Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(ancestor.report.parentReportID ?? '', ancestor.reportAction.reportActionID));

App/src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemParentAction.tsx

Line 112 in 774a3ec

isLinkDisabled={!ReportUtils.canCurrentUserOpenReport(ReportUtils.getReport(ancestor?.report?.parentReportID))}

Without these proposed changes there will be two conflicting definitions of an ancestor object, one as used in ThreadDivider and another as used in ReportActionItem. It will clarify code and help to prevent future issues by having only one definition of an ancestor object, the definition used in ReportActionItem.

[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 1.4.81-11 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Revert "Fix get all ancestors in a thread" #43201

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-18. 🎊

[melvin-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:

• [@marcochavezf] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@marcochavezf] 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.
• [@twisterdotcom] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.82-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Revert "Fix get all ancestors in a thread" #43201

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-20. 🎊

[melvin-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:

• [@marcochavezf] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@marcochavezf] 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.
• [@twisterdotcom] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[twisterdotcom]

Okay, looks like #43518 is still open. @rushatgabhane's C+ review will be handled in #41519.

Nothing else to do here.

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.18-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] Revert "Fix get all ancestors in a thread" #43201
• Reinstate fix get all ancestors in a thread #43518

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-19. 🎊

[melvin-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:

• [@marcochavezf] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] 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:
• [@marcochavezf] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@marcochavezf] 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.
• [@twisterdotcom] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon: