[HOLD for payment 2024-11-26] [HOLD for payment 2024-11-21] [HOLD for payment 2024-11-20] [Workspace feeds] Unassigning a card offline seems to use pattern A, when the doc says it should be pattern B.

[m-natarajan]

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:
Reproducible in staging?: Needs Reproduction
Reproducible in production?: Needs reproduction
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?:
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: @joekaufmanexpensify
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): #quality

Action Performed:

Prerequisite:
Members and company cards added in workspace and cards assigned to a member

1. Click Card details
2. Go offline
3. Click Unassign cards

Expected Result:

Use Pattern B as per document sheet

Actual Result:

Pattern A is used

Workaround:

Unknown

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

2024-10-31_13-33-46.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @jliexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @jliexpensify (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]

Current assignee @jliexpensify is eligible for the Bug assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[m-natarajan]

BZ team member, Callstack will work on this issue, please wait for them to comment before moving the issue forward.

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @mountiny is eligible for the AutoAssignerNewDotQuality assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[MelvinBot]

This has been labelled "Needs Reproduction". Follow the steps here: https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/16989

[melvin-bot]

@jliexpensify, @mountiny Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[mountiny]

Not overdue, will be picked up

[koko57]

Hey, I'm Agata from Callstack. I would like to work on this issue 🙂

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.60-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix: Change offline pattern for unassigning cards #52109

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-20. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @koko57 does not require payment (Contractor)
• @DylanDylann requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann @jliexpensify @DylanDylann 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]

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.61-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: use pattern B for unassigning cards #52357

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-21. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @koko57 does not require payment (Contractor)
• @DylanDylann requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann @jliexpensify @DylanDylann 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]

[koko57]

@joekaufmanexpensify issue you mentioned here: #52357 (comment) is fixed - PR #52522

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.63-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: apply pattern B for cards in wallet #52522

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-26. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @koko57 does not require payment (Contractor)
• @DylanDylann requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann @jliexpensify @DylanDylann 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]

[DylanDylann]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 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)
• 2c. Reported on both staging and production
• 2d. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [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: [NO QA]: Company card details #48491 (comment)

• [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:

• [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.

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Test:

1. Go to a workspace with company card feeds enabled
2. Assign a card to the current user
3. Go offline
4. Go to card details
5. Unassign the card in step 2
6. Verify that the card is still on the card list but greyed out with the strikethrough
7. Go to the Members page -> Go to your details - the removed card should also be crossed out and greyed, and the item should be disabled.
8. Go to the wallet page, the removed card should also be crossed out and greyed
9. Go online and verify the removed card disappear

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[mountiny]

@jliexpensify could you help us add the regression test for this one to testrail please?

Otheriwse Payments will be handled separately for the project so we can close after that test is added

[jliexpensify]

Done, closing!