[Due for payment 2025-04-25] [$250] Login - Email field is auto unfocused

[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: 9.1.28-1
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: Exp
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Mac 15.3 / Chrome
App Component: Other

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Log out if logged in.
3. Refresh the page.

Expected Result:

Email field will auto focus.

Actual Result:

Email field is auto unfocused. Error is thrown.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6802426_1744698886714.20250415_143327.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021912126632863856206
• Upwork Job ID: 1912126632863856206
• Last Price Increase: 2025-04-15
• Automatic offers:
• nkdengineer | Contributor | 106929760

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @bfitzexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @bfitzexpensify (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]

Triggered auto assignment to @Gonals (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[melvin-bot]

💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[nkdengineer]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-04-15 07:52:03 UTC.

Proposal

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

Email field is auto unfocused. Error is thrown.

What is the root cause of that problem?

useAccountValidation always returns the boolean value

App/src/hooks/useAccountValidation.tsx

Lines 5 to 9 in 6d6628c

	function useAccountValidation() {
	const [isAccountValidated] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT, {selector: (account) => !!account?.validated});
	const [isUserValidated] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.USER, {selector: (user) => !!user?.validated});
	// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/prefer-nullish-coalescing

Which causes blurOnSubmit to be true by default

App/src/pages/signin/SignInPage.tsx

Line 328 in 6d6628c

blurOnSubmit={isAccountValidated === false}

then the input is blurred here after it's focued

App/src/pages/signin/LoginForm/BaseLoginForm.tsx

Lines 175 to 177 in 6d6628c

	useEffect(() => {
	if (blurOnSubmit) {
	input.current?.blur();

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

We shouldn't convert this data to boolean and use the original value.

App/src/hooks/useAccountValidation.tsx

Lines 5 to 9 in 6d6628c

	function useAccountValidation() {
	const [isAccountValidated] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT, {selector: (account) => !!account?.validated});
	const [isUserValidated] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.USER, {selector: (user) => !!user?.validated});
	// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/prefer-nullish-coalescing

We can define a new prop, shouldReturnOriginalValue, for this hoo,k and it will return the current value if shouldReturnOriginalValue is true

App/src/hooks/useAccountValidation.tsx

Lines 5 to 9 in 6d6628c

	function useAccountValidation() {
	const [isAccountValidated] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT, {selector: (account) => !!account?.validated});
	const [isUserValidated] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.USER, {selector: (user) => !!user?.validated});
	// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/prefer-nullish-coalescing

Then we can pass shouldReturnOriginalValue as true here

App/src/pages/signin/SignInPage.tsx

Line 328 in 6d6628c

blurOnSubmit={isAccountValidated === false}

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

None

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021912126632863856206

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @abdulrahuman5196 (External)

[Gonals]

@abdulrahuman5196, this is a blocker, so we'll wnt it to move along ASAP. Are you able to work on it?

[abdulrahuman5196]

@Gonals hi, I am not immediately available at this time. Could you kindly assign it to a different C+

[ishpaul777]

@nkdengineer can you mention offending PR?

[nkdengineer]

@ishpaul777 It comes from #59983

[melvin-bot]

📣 @nkdengineer 🎉 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 📖

[nkdengineer]

@ishpaul777 The PR is ready for review.

[marcaaron]

Fix CP'd and asked QA for a re-test

[marcaaron]

QA confirmed that this is now fixed.

[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 9.1.29-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [CP Staging] fix: login - Email field is auto unfocused #60279

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-04-25. 🎊

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

• @ishpaul777 requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @nkdengineer requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@ishpaul777 @bfitzexpensify @ishpaul777 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]

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

[ishpaul777]

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: create hook to check validated user #59983

• [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: no need

• [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.- this was found while normal deploy QA we should have enough tests covering the flow already so no need

[melvin-bot]

@bfitzexpensify Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[bfitzexpensify]

Payment summary:

@ishpaul777 due $250 through NewDot Manual Requests
@nkdengineer due $250 via Upwork ✅

[garrettmknight]

$250 approved for @ishpaul777