[HOLD for payment 2024-12-17] Make Search Input on search results Page behave similarly to SearchRouter
Followup after discussion in: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/52568
Make the Input on SearchResults Page behave similarly to SearchRouter. It should show:
- 5 recent searches same as Router
- chat rooms/reports working identically to router (navigating to chats when clicked)
Also make cmd+k on this Page focus the input instead of displaying Router.
CC @shawnborton @luacmartins
Issue Owner
Current Issue Owner: @trjExpensify
Triggered auto assignment to @trjExpensify (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.
Awesome, thanks!
Nice, who's taking this one on @Kicu?
myself ofcourse! 😁 please assign me 🙏
Done!
@Kicu, @trjExpensify, @luacmartins Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?
PR will be ready today. Recently a lot of people are touching Search simultaneously, and I had a lot of problems resolving conflicts on Friday.
Please also assign me to the issue here. Thanks.
PR merged
⚠️ 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.
PR merged
Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".
The solution for this issue has been :rocket: deployed to production :rocket: in version 9.0.73-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period :calendar:. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:
- https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/53198
If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-12-17. :confetti_ball:
For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:
- @rojiphil requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)
- @Kicu does not require payment (Contractor)
@rojiphil @trjExpensify @rojiphil The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]
This had a regression:
- https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/53823
which was confirmed by author in follow-up PR https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/53859 description.
Payment Summary
Upwork Job
- ROLE: @rojiphil paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)
- Contributor: @Kicu is from an agency-contributor and not due payment
BugZero Checklist (@trjExpensify)
- [ ] I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
- [ ] I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
- [ ] I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
- [ ] I have verified the payment summary above is correct
Checklist time please, @rojiphil!
BugZero Checklist:
- [x] [Contributor] Classify the bug:
Bug classification
Source of bug:
- [x] 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
- [ ] 1b. Mistake during implementation
- [ ] 1c. Backend bug
- [ ] 1z. Other:
Where bug was reported:
- [ ] 2a. Reported on production
- [ ] 2b. Reported on staging (deploy blocker)
- [x] 2c. Reported on a PR
- [ ] 2z. Other:
Who reported the bug:
- [ ] 3a. Expensify user
- [x] 3b. Expensify employee
- [ ] 3c. Contributor
- [ ] 3d. QA
- [ ] 3z. Other:
-
[x] [Contributor] 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: This was a continual work from this PR
-
[x] [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source 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: Not Required
-
[x] [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
Regression Test Proposal
Precondition:
Test:
- Ensure that the central pane is displaying any page other than the
searchpage - On key-in
Cmd+k, verify that the search router is displayed - Enter a search text e.g. type:chat from:[email protected] and press
enterto open the search page. - Verify that the search page shows the search input containing the search text.
- On key-in
Cmd+kverify that the focus is shown on the search input. - Key-in
Cmd+kagain and verify that the focus is lost on the search input. - Key-in
Cmd+kagain and bring back the focus on the search input. - Key-in a search text and press
enterso that reports are also displayed in search results. - Click/Tap a report/workspace in the search result and verify that the central pane is navigated to the selected report/workspace.
- Navigate back to the
Searchpage and key-in the email of a user with whom there was no chat before. - Press
Enterand verify that the user is navigated to the chat report of the new user.
Do we agree 👍 or 👎
@luacmartins Can we keep the compensation here to $250 after considering the regression? The reasoning is that we did some awesome work here and it took more cycles of review than the usual ones to reach there. cc @trjExpensify
Yea, I think that's fine
Sounds good!
Payment summary as follows:
- $250 to @rojiphil for the C+ review
Offer sent!
Accepted offer. Thanks @trjExpensify
Paid, closing!