-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[HOLD for payment 2021-12-15] Search - Make users appear first in the result list over group chats or rooms #6359
Comments
Triggered auto assignment to @Jag96 ( |
Proposal
|
I think Expected behaviour might be more complicated, I guess we should distinguish between the name and description. Let's consider scenario where we search We should first make sure we have the expected behaviour thought through before making this external. Thoughts about the behaviour @TomatoToaster and @trjExpensify? |
From the thread it sounds like we want to prioritize in this order:
All rooms have the |
I agree with that! 👍 Separately, do we need to consider the logic for GroupDMs versus DMs? As in, if you search |
@Jag96 Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues! |
That makes sense to me 👍 Any other considerations to make here @vitHoracek @trjExpensify? If not we can make this external! |
That also seems reasonable to me! I think we settled down on a good solution :) |
That was it from my POV at this point! 👍 |
Triggered auto assignment to @jboniface ( |
@parasharrajat I tried testing w/ your proposal and it looks good for single users vs rooms, but it looks like you can still see a group chat above a single user chat. Can you update your proposal so that single users are shown above group chats? |
Ok. Great. Based on the expected behaviour #6359 (comment).
// If we are prioritizing 1:1 chats in search, do it only once we started searching
if (prioritizeOneToOneReportsInSearch && searchValue !== '') {
const [oneToOneReports, otherReports] = _.partition(recentReportOptions, option => !!option.login);
recentReportOptions = oneToOneReports.concat(otherReports);
} It will satisfy all three. |
@parasharrajat that sounds good to me! @jboniface let's hire @parasharrajat for this one |
📣 @parasharrajat You have been assigned to this job by @Jag96! |
Current assignee @parasharrajat is eligible for the Exported assigner, not assigning anyone new. |
Current assignee @Jag96 is eligible for the Exported assigner, not assigning anyone new. |
@parasharrajat I created the job and sent an offer! |
Ah, so one thing here @parasharrajat. I was just chatting to @Jag96, but I think this was the logic for most recent when there’s a tiebreaker in the DMs match? As in, if we have Does everyone agree we should reinstate that if it was removed? If so, happy to add a milestone on to this Upwork contract to account for it 👍 |
Yup, I forgot about this sorry. I think adding a milestone to the Upwork contract is fine. |
Ok. understood but @Jag96 could you please lay down all the update cases once again so that I can decide what to do to cover all? |
So the logic should be:
So if I search for @trjExpensify any other additions there? |
Hm, I dunno. I kind of feel like we should always prioritize the DM if only one name has been typed in. Perhaps we can discuss in the #open-source channel to make sure we have agreement on this real quick before going forward. It has been discussed a few times before I remember (for example here), so I think it'd be good to get some broader visiblity on this decision. |
Good idea! Dropped a message in slack for discussion |
Based on the discussion it sounds like there isn't any additional work to be done here! I will update this GH if anything changes when others come online next week, but for now, we can leave this as is |
The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.1.18-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue: If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2021-12-15. 🎊 |
@parasharrajat sorry this slipped by me, job is here https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01d07f9c95161deca4 i invited you |
Is the search is mapping over the filtered array of objects? If that's the case, wouldn't the following solution work in theory? If it doesn't can you help me understand why?
Each chat object should have
Apologies if that's beside the point, still glossing over the codebase |
@parasharrajat apologies for the delay here, I hired you, can you accept the offer so I can pay? @mosfiend the best place to look for jobs is here https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Help+Wanted%22 |
Paid @parasharrajat |
If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!
Action Performed:
Expected Result:
User should be prioritized over group chats or rooms. The prioritization should be:
Ann
)Ann, Joe
orAnn's Room
)Actual Result:
Room is being prioritized over the user
Workaround:
No need.
Platform:
Where is this issue occurring?
Version Number: 1.1.15-1
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @mountiny
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1637012485218100
View all open jobs on GitHub
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: