[LOW] [Splits] [$500] Web - IOU is greyed out, error message appears in chat and console

[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: 1.4.4.0
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
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:

Issue found when executing PR #31102

Action Performed:

1. Navigate to https://staging.new.expensify.com/
2. Log in with a new account
3. Start a chat using the FAB
4. Input an account who isn't registered yet
5. Send a message
6. Upload a picture using the composers "+" button
7. Request money (manual) using the FAB
8. Input an email (can be the one from step 4 or a new one)
9. Finish the IOU

Expected Result:

I should be able to make the IOU without error messages or console errors

Actual Result:

I get an error message and the IOU is greyed out. Two errors appear in the console as soon as the error message appears in the chat
Unexpected error creating this chat, please try again later. There is a previously existing chat between these users

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

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

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6292386_1701121325770.bandicam_2023-11-27_21-33-01-176.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01ae5fe97cb4eccf95
• Upwork Job ID: 1729285304604618752
• Last Price Increase: 2023-11-27

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @iwiznia

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @joekaufmanexpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01ae5fe97cb4eccf95

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @narefyev91 (External)

[tienifr]

Proposal

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

When creating IOU with users we already have chat with, get error "Unexpected error creating this chat, please try again later. There is a previously existing chat between these users"

What is the root cause of that problem?

We're not handling the preexisting chat case properly for the IOU case. The proper way to handle it is to redirect to the preexisting chat and clear the unnecessary data here, which already works fine in case of New chat created that has preexisting chat.

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

1. In RequestMoney command, the back-end should return preexistingReportID (similar to OpenReport) if the report creation failure is due to existing report between the 2 users. It should also handle so that the money request is created properly on that preexisting report
2. Front-end will use it to redirect users to the correct chat, and clean up the optimistic report, report actions and related data of the duplicated chat, similar to what's already done for the new chat case here

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Other related flow like split bill might have the same issue, we'll need to double check and fix for them as well.

[narefyev91]

Proposal from @tienifr looks good to me #32076 (comment)

1. We need to add internal BE engineer to work on changes
2. We should assign @tienifr to make draft PR for FE side
3. Combine with BE change and test draft PR to be sure that issue will be resolved
   🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[joekaufmanexpensify]

I'm thinking we should hold off on proceeding with this for right now. We are having some larger internal discussions about this hidden feature here that could impact whether we need to actually fix this in this issue.

[iwiznia]

ok, putting this on HOLD then. @joekaufmanexpensify you can let us know when we should unhold

[tienifr]

I'm thinking we should hold off on proceeding with this for right now. We are having some larger internal discussions about this hidden feature here that could impact whether we need to actually fix this in this issue.

@joekaufmanexpensify @iwiznia just FYI this doesn't just happen in the Hidden case. It will also happen if user A initiates chat with user B on 1 device and also creates a money request to user B on another device in offline mode, then go online. It will face the same issue.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Hm, interesting. I'm not sure if creating a chat with one user while online on one device, and then simultaneously attempting a money request with the same user on another device while offline is something a legitimate user would do.

If the end result of the above discussion is that the hidden case will be fixed by other changes we are making, I'd probably rather wait and see if any actual customers ever experience this other case before doing anything.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Making this a weekly for now, since the discussion is not yet resolved.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Discussion is still ongoing

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Same. Looks like we were timing some queries to inform the direction we go in.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Bumped discussion to determine whether anything is needed here.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@iwiznia I discussed this with Puneet more today, and the result of that discussion was that we should proceed with fixing the bug in this issue.

We are already handling part of this bug here so it works if the actions are all in one session. Meaning, if someone starts a chat with someone they don't know, and then separately creates an IOU with the same person in the same session, we will correctly consolidate the message and IOU into one chat.

However, we still won't handle the piece related to multiple sessions correctly. Meaning if someone did this, and then signed out and back in, we'd try and put the IOU onto a new chat and it'd error out (as shown above in OP). Puneet mentioned we already handle this case for chats, and we can just re-use that same backend logic for IOUs here.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

LMK if you agree! Taking this off of hold for now

[iwiznia]

No update

[iwiznia]

No update

[iwiznia]

No update

[iwiznia]

No update

[iwiznia]

No update

[iwiznia]

No update

[iwiznia]

No update

[parasharrajat]

@joekaufmanexpensify Let's push this forward to the finish line. Is there a reason to hold this issue? Please change the label to weekly.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Hm, I don't think it is explicitly on hold. It's a question of internal priorities, given the next step here is for @iwiznia to put up the backend fix discussed here. Defer to him on when he thinks he'll be able to prioritize it. Happy to move it to weekly if that will be soon.

[parasharrajat]

It's been almost 8 months. Let's get this prioritized now. What do you think @iwiznia?

[iwiznia]

The changes needed are quite large and involve lots of api commands... given the low severity of the issues and the fact that reproduction steps are quite complex, I think we might be better off closing it.