[Due for payment 2025-03-27] [$250] Profile - RBR appears in Profile settings after removing second contact method

[IuliiaHerets]

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: 9.1.9-2
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: No
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?/cases/view/2654630
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: iPhone 15 iOS 18.1.1 Safari, MacBook Air Sonoma 14.1
App Component: User Settings

Action Performed:

Preconditions: gmail account added a second contact method (email)

1. Navigate to Settings tab - Profile - Contact method
2. Select a secondary contact method
3. Click Remove

Expected Result:

Secondary contact method is removed from the list without any error

Actual Result:

Red dot appears in Profile after removing second contact method. The RBR is removed after clearing cache.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6740286_1739339201560.ScreenRecording_02-11-2025_21-33-18_1.mp4

Bug6740286_1739339201560.Recording__421.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021897762842116763600
• Upwork Job ID: 1897762842116763600
• Last Price Increase: 2025-03-06
• Automatic offers:
• linhvovan29546 | Contributor | 106463713

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @fedirjh

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @NicMendonca (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/~021897762842116763600

[melvin-bot]

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

[linhvovan29546]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-03-08 12:09:33 UTC.

Proposal

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

Profile - RBR appears in Profile settings after removing second contact method

What is the root cause of that problem?

We remove contactMethod here

App/src/libs/actions/User.ts

Lines 269 to 270 in add7b6e

	API.write(WRITE_COMMANDS.DELETE_CONTACT_METHOD, parameters, {optimisticData, successData, failureData});
	Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.SETTINGS_CONTACT_METHODS.getRoute(backTo));

After remove contactMethod, we back to the SETTINGS_CONTACT_METHODS page. However, since Onyx updates and navigation asynchronously, As a result, we remain in ContactMethodDetailsPage for a short time, then a useEffect triggers resetContactMethodValidateCodeSentState.

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/ContactMethodDetailsPage.tsx

Lines 169 to 174 in add7b6e

	useEffect(() => {
	if (loginData?.validatedDate) {
	return;
	}
	resetContactMethodValidateCodeSentState(contactMethod);
	}, [contactMethod, loginData?.validatedDate]);

This causes the ValidateCodeActionForm to be displayed abit.

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/ContactMethodDetailsPage.tsx

Lines 165 to 167 in add7b6e

	useEffect(() => {
	setIsValidateCodeFormVisible(!loginData?.validatedDate);
	}, [loginData?.validatedDate, loginData?.errorFields?.addedLogin]);

which then requests the REQUEST_CONTACT_METHOD_VALIDATE_CODE command. Since we just deleted that second contact method, this request fails, leading to an RBR appearing.

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/ContactMethodDetailsPage.tsx

Line 337 in add7b6e

sendValidateCode={() => requestContactMethodValidateCode(contactMethod)}

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

We should not reset the contact method if there is a previously pending delete action

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/ContactMethodDetailsPage.tsx

Lines 169 to 174 in add7b6e

	useEffect(() => {
	if (loginData?.validatedDate) {
	return;
	}
	resetContactMethodValidateCodeSentState(contactMethod);
	}, [contactMethod, loginData?.validatedDate]);

    const prevLoginData = usePrevious(loginData);
....
    useEffect(() => {
        if (loginData?.validatedDate) {
            return;
        }
        if(prevLoginData?.pendingFields?.deletedLogin){ // new
            return;
        }
        resetContactMethodValidateCodeSentState(contactMethod);
    }, [contactMethod, loginData?.validatedDate, prevLoginData?.pendingFields?.deletedLogin]);

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

N/A, this is a navigation issue. However, we could simulate Onyx data and assert that the resetContactMethodValidateCodeSentState is not called after deleting a contact.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

1. We can return early if prevValidatedDate has a value instead of prevDeletedLogin.
2. We can return early if this is not the default contact method.

[linhvovan29546]

Proposal updated

• Add alternative solutions

[melvin-bot]

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

[fedirjh]

@linhvovan29546 Your proposal makes sense to me. I think we should just early return when we got a delete pending field.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

📣 @linhvovan29546 🎉 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 📖

[linhvovan29546]

PR is ready for review!

[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 9.1.15-9 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: RBR appears in profile after remove second contact #58161

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-03-27. 🎊

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

• @fedirjh requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @linhvovan29546 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@fedirjh @NicMendonca @fedirjh 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]

[NicMendonca]

Payment summary

C+: @fedirjh - $250 via NewDot Manual Requests
Contributor: @linhvovan29546 - $250 paid via Upwork (✅ paid)

[NicMendonca]

@fedirjh just a bump on the checklist before we can close this out!

[melvin-bot]

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

[NicMendonca]

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:

• [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.

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [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

Precondition:

Test:

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[fedirjh]

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: fix: unable to receive New Magic Codes for Primary Contact #55498 (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: N/A

• [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.

N/A we have both regression test and we have implemented automated test

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [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

Precondition:

Test:

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[NicMendonca]

Thanks! reposting payment summary - #57870 (comment)

[garrettmknight]

$250 approved for @fedirjh