Search - Deleted search doesn´t disappear from secondary device despite refreshing page

[vincdargento]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.0.74-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
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: https://expensify.testrail.io/index.php?/tests/view/5328850&group_by=cases:section_id&group_order=asc&group_id=296775
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: Account has to be opened in two devices or environments at the same time.

1. Open the Expensify app.
2. Tap on "Search" on the bottom of the screen.
3. Tap on the filters icon.
4. Apply any filter.
5. Tap on "Save Search"
6. Switch to second device and verify that the search was created too.
7. On main device, tap on dropdown menu.
8. Tap on the three dots icon on the saved search and delete it.
9. Switch to second device again and refresh the page.

Expected Result:

Search deleted from main device, should disappear from every device in which the account is logged.

Actual Result:

Deleted saved search, doesn´t disappear from secondary device despite refreshing the page, and the user can interact with it normally.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

bug.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021866860154375173814
• Upwork Job ID: 1866860154375173814
• Last Price Increase: 2024-12-18

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @rojiphil

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @bfitzexpensify (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]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021866860154375173814

[melvin-bot]

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

[FitseTLT]

Already being handled in #53687 Let's close it

[rojiphil]

Already being handled in #53687 Let's close it

@FitseTLT Can you please explain how this issue is been handled in the mentioned issue?

[rojiphil]

@bfitzexpensify I think this issue is different. Can you please reopen this issue until this comment is resolved?

[FitseTLT]

The RCA is the same @rojiphil we re-request search action when the transaction length increase but in both cases the expense is deleted which means transaction length decreases hence we don't request search here

App/src/hooks/useSearchHighlightAndScroll.ts

Lines 46 to 55 in b2dca65

	const newTransactionAdded = transactionsLength && typeof previousTransactionsLength === 'number' && transactionsLength > previousTransactionsLength;
	const newReportActionAdded = reportActionsLength && typeof prevReportActionsLength === 'number' && reportActionsLength > prevReportActionsLength;
	// Check if a new transaction or report action was added
	if ((!isChat && !!newTransactionAdded) || (isChat && !!newReportActionAdded)) {
	// Set the flag indicating the search is triggered by the hook
	triggeredByHookRef.current = true;
	// Trigger the search
	SearchActions.search({queryJSON, offset});

@bfitzexpensify please close it they are the same issues

[rojiphil]

The RCA is the same @rojiphil we re-request search action when the transaction length increase but in both cases the expense is deleted which means transaction length decreases hence we don't request search here

@FitseTLT Wondering how the RCA can be the same when this issue is not about deleting an expense. Rather, it is about deleting the saved search. Are they not different?

[FitseTLT]

Wow very sorry @rojiphil 🙏 It's totally different issue. Sorry for the confusion here.

[MrMuzyk]

I am Michał from Callstack - expert contributor group. I’d like to work on this job.

[MrMuzyk]

Proposal

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

When deleting last saved search it's not being removed correctly on parallel device

What is the root cause of that problem?

This issue only happens for the last saved search that user tries to remove. If there are any saved searches left after delete everything works fine.

I believe the issues lays on the BE side. When request is processed on the "main device", BE sends a pusher update to sync all the connected clients for the user that made the request. However that pusher event is sent with an empty array [] instead of an empty object {} which causes fail during update inside Onyx on the "secondary device".

To confirm that, I've logged the value that this particular Onyx.set is receiving - was []. I've also added a condition to modify passed value in that one scenario. When swapped to empty object {} everything executed without any issues and saved search was deleted on both accounts simultaneously

Modification to Onyx.set

function set(key, value) {
    console.log(key, value, 'onyxSet')
    if (key === 'nvp_savedSearches') {
        value = {};
    }

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

I believe the issue lies on the BE side. When DeleteSavedSearch command that removes last saved search is processed by BE, pusher update that is being send should clear the nvp_savedSearches via empty object {} instead of array []

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

N/A

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

N/A

[melvin-bot]

@rojiphil, @bfitzexpensify Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[rojiphil]

I believe the issue lies on the BE side.

@MrMuzyk Thanks for the proposal. I agree with the analysis.
Let's bring in the internal engineer to weigh in here.
🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @carlosmiceli, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[carlosmiceli]

The analysis seems correct. I'll take over this one.

[rojiphil]

Unassigning myself as there is nothing to be done from FE side. Will stay subscribed though. Thanks.

[melvin-bot]

@carlosmiceli @bfitzexpensify this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to a solution? Let's make sure we're treating this as a top priority. Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[carlosmiceli]

I have quite a bit on my plate so will have to unassign myself, maybe @luacmartins can fix this one quickly since he has a lot of context on Search.