[Due for payment 2025-03-24] [$250] Reports- A white area is covering half of the Attachment search result section

[mitarachim]

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: 9.1.5-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: No, reproducible on hybrid only
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: #54228
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: SS S20 FE/ Àndroid 13
App Component: Other

Action Performed:

Precondition: User has some attachements on Chat

1. Tap on Reports on the bottom menu and tap on Bookmark icon
2. Select type is Chat
3. Add "an" to the end of search keyword then search
4. Tap on Attachment tab
5. Delete "an" search keyword then search

Expected Result:

The search result is fully displayed to the bottom of screen

Actual Result:

There is a white area is covering half of the Attachment search result section

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6753232_1740451769042.az_recorder_20250225_092906.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021894434848739943598
• Upwork Job ID: 1894434848739943598
• Last Price Increase: 2025-02-25
• Automatic offers:
• daledah | Contributor | 106418300

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @mananjadhav

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sakluger (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/~021894434848739943598

[melvin-bot]

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

[gurus00]

Proposal

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

A white area is covering half of the Attachment search result section

What is the root cause of that problem?

Viewport height is not set correctly on the search page or Keyboard layout has an error

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

Check the viewport height and keyboard layout and fix it

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)

[mananjadhav]

The current proposal is incomplete. Waiting for better proposals.

[gurus00]

Sure I will

[daledah]

Proposal

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

There is a white area is covering half of the Attachment search result section

What is the root cause of that problem?

We always open a new search page when a new search query is submitted:

App/src/components/Search/SearchPageHeader/SearchPageHeaderInput.tsx

Line 159 in ac83517

Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.SEARCH_ROOT.getRoute({query: updatedQuery}));

Each search page is wrapped inside the ScreenWrapper component:

App/src/pages/Search/SearchPageNarrow.tsx

Line 122 in ac83517

<ScreenWrapper

which utilizes KeyboardAvoidingView to automatically adjust the screen height when the keyboard is open.

In this bug, when the keyboard is open and a new search query is submitted, a new search screen is opened. At that moment, KeyboardAvoidingView still detects the keyboard as open, leaving extra space for it. As a result, a white area appears at the bottom of the screen.

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

Make sure the keyboard is closed successfully before navigating to a new search screen can address the issue:

App/src/components/Search/SearchPageHeader/SearchPageHeaderInput.tsx

Line 247 in ac83517

submitSearch(textInputValue);

                                    KeyboardUtils.dismiss().then(() => {
                                        submitSearch(textInputValue);
                                    });

Only apply the fix with android native if the bug only appear in this platform.

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

NA

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Update:

App/src/components/Search/SearchPageHeader/SearchPageHeaderInput.tsx

Line 159 in ac83517

Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.SEARCH_ROOT.getRoute({query: updatedQuery}));

            KeyboardUtils.dismiss().then(() => {
                Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.SEARCH_ROOT.getRoute({query: updatedQuery}));
            });

or we can wrap the navigate logic inside InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions instead of KeyboardUtils.dismiss.

[sakluger]

Hey @mananjadhav, could you please review the new proposal?

[mananjadhav]

I think we should use the alternative solution KeyboardUtils.dismiss() / InteractionManager while calling the navigate method. Will let the internal engineer comment too. @daledah's proposal looks good.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed.

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[daledah]

@mananjadhav Could you link the proposal to your review to make it easier for the internal team to track?

[mananjadhav]

Yes. Thank you. Done.

[sakluger]

@marcochavezf could you take a look at the @mananjadhav's recommendation? #57369 (comment)

[daledah]

@marcochavezf Could you help review this issue when you have a sec?

[marcochavezf]

Apologies for the delay guys, and thanks for the review @mananjadhav, the proposal also LGTM. Assigning @daledah 🚀

[melvin-bot]

📣 @daledah 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[daledah]

@mananjadhav PR is ready for review.

[mananjadhav]

Testing the PR.

[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 9.1.13-5 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: hide keyboard before navigating search #57993

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-03-24. 🎊

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

• @mananjadhav requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @daledah requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@mananjadhav @sakluger @mananjadhav 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]

[sakluger]

@mananjadhav can you please complete the BZ checklist?

[sakluger]

Summarizing payment on this issue:

Contributor: @daledah $250, paid via Upwork
Contributor+: @mananjadhav $250, please request on Newdot after completing the BZ checklist

[mananjadhav]

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 (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
• 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
• 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: Couldn't pinpoint a specific as this was limited to specific platform (Android Hybrid App).

• [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: NA

• [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.

@sakluger I don't think we need a regression test for this one, as it's a very edge case with one platform and that would generally occur in some devices only.

[garrettmknight]

$250 approved for @mananjadhav

[sakluger]

Sounds good @mananjadhav. Looks like we're good to close this one out!