[HOLD for payment 2025-02-05] [$250] Task - Task assignee is not assigned when creating task via [] @email <task name>

[lanitochka17]

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: 9.0.88-4
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: N/A
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Open chat
3. Type [] @email@email.com
   task title and send it

Expected Result:

Task will be assigned to the tagged user

Actual Result:

Task is not assigned to the tagged user

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

Bug6699060_1734622590003.20241219_233101.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021882302358350245599
• Upwork Job ID: 1882302358350245599
• Last Price Increase: 2025-01-23

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @kadiealexander

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @kadiealexander (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.

[Tony-MK]

Proposal

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

Task - Task assignee is not assigned when creating task via [] @email

What is the root cause of that problem?

The CONST.REGEX.TASK_TITLE_WITH_OPTONAL_SHORT_MENTION regex does not properly match the groups in the text.

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

Line 128 in 85c646c

const match = text.match(CONST.REGEX.TASK_TITLE_WITH_OPTONAL_SHORT_MENTION);

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

Firstly, update the CONST.REGEX.TASK_TITLE_WITH_OPTONAL_SHORT_MENTION regex to the one below.

TASK_TITLE_WITH_OPTONAL_SHORT_MENTION:
            /^(\[\])\s+(@(?:(?=[\w'#%+-]+(?:\.[\w'#%+-]+)*@?)[\w.'#%+-]{1,64}(?:@(?:(?=[a-z\d]+(?:-+[a-z\d]+)*\.)(?:[a-z\d-]{1,63}\.)+[a-z]{2,63}))?))\s*([\s\S]*)/,

Secondly, retrieve the mentioned text from the third, not the fourth group, and handle the extra @ character.

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

Line 137 in 85c646c

const mention = match[1] ? match[1].trim() : '';

const mention = match[2] ? match[2].trim().slice(1) : '';

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

Test CONST.REGEX.TASK_TITLE_WITH_OPTONAL_SHORT_MENTION with some examples of comments that expect a task to be created.

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

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

The task regex doesn't work.

What is the root cause of that problem?

This starts happening after this PR. In that PR, we want to add the task title length validation, so the PR moves the regex to CONST to make it reusable.

App/src/CONST.ts

Line 3127 in 0190b0a

TASK_TITLE_WITH_OPTONAL_SHORT_MENTION: `^\\[\\]\\s+(?:@(?:${EMAIL_WITH_OPTIONAL_DOMAIN}))?\\s*([\\s\\S]*)`,

The regex concatenates with the EMAIL_WITH_OPTIONAL_DOMAIN. However, the way it's being concatenated is wrong. If we see the code where the concatenation is first added, we take the regex source and concatenate it into the string instead of the whole regex object.

Notice from the image above, on the left (which is the current regex) has the /.

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

Update the regex so it only concatenates with the EMAIL_WITH_OPTIONAL_DOMAIN source.

App/src/CONST.ts

Line 3127 in 0190b0a

TASK_TITLE_WITH_OPTONAL_SHORT_MENTION: `^\\[\\]\\s+(?:@(?:${EMAIL_WITH_OPTIONAL_DOMAIN}))?\\s*([\\s\\S]*)`,

EMAIL_WITH_OPTIONAL_DOMAIN.source

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

To be able to test it easily, I think we should move this logic to a util and test that util which returns the task title and/or assignee. Since there are a lot of cases, we will just handle the case of task regex with mention and title.

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

Lines 128 to 157 in 0190b0a

	const match = text.match(CONST.REGEX.TASK_TITLE_WITH_OPTONAL_SHORT_MENTION);
	if (!match) {
	return false;
	}
	let title = match[3] ? match[3].trim().replace(/\n/g, ' ') : undefined;
	if (!title) {
	return false;
	}
	const mention = match[1] ? match[1].trim() : '';
	const mentionWithDomain = ReportUtils.addDomainToShortMention(mention) ?? mention;
	const isValidMention = Str.isValidEmail(mentionWithDomain);
	let assignee: OnyxEntry<OnyxTypes.PersonalDetails>;
	let assigneeChatReport;
	if (mentionWithDomain) {
	if (isValidMention) {
	assignee = Object.values(allPersonalDetails ?? {}).find((value) => value?.login === mentionWithDomain) ?? undefined;
	if (!Object.keys(assignee ?? {}).length) {
	const assigneeAccountID = UserUtils.generateAccountID(mentionWithDomain);
	const optimisticDataForNewAssignee = Task.setNewOptimisticAssignee(mentionWithDomain, assigneeAccountID);
	assignee = optimisticDataForNewAssignee.assignee;
	assigneeChatReport = optimisticDataForNewAssignee.assigneeReport;
	}
	} else {
	// If the mention is not valid, include it on the title.
	// The mention could be invalid if it's a short mention and failed to be converted to a full mention.
	title = `@${mentionWithDomain} ${title}`;
	}
	}

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021882302358350245599

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @eh2077 (External)

[eh2077]

I think we should go with @bernhardoj 's proposal. I agree with their diagnosis of the issue and the test plan also looks good to me.

🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed