Fix "same search query appears twice in Recent searches" by SzymczakJ · Pull Request #51314 · Expensify/App

SzymczakJ · 2024-10-23T08:54:09Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #51044
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Navigate to the Search page.
Click on the search bar icon to open the search field.
Enter any search query and press the Enter key to submit the query.
On the search results page, change the "Sort By" column contextual filter.
On the search results page, change the "Sort Order" contextual filter.
On the search results page, use the workspace switcher to select a workspace.
Click on the search bar icon again to open the search router.
Verify that the search query (entered in step 3) will only appear once in the recent searches section (no duplicate queries)

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as tests.

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

289Adam289

LGTM

melvin-bot · 2024-10-23T22:38:28Z

@getusha Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

SzymczakJ · 2024-10-25T14:38:26Z

Let's move this PR forward @rayane-djouah 🙏
Do we have some estimate on how long it will take to put a fix on BE side @luacmartins?

rayane-d

@SzymczakJ I think we need to exclude policyID from recentSearchHash also because searches that differ only by policyID appear multiple times in Recent searches:

WDYT?

luacmartins · 2024-10-25T15:42:34Z

src/libs/SearchQueryUtils.ts

-            orderedQuery += ` ${buildFilterValuesString(key, sortedFilterValues ?? [])}`;
+            orderedQuery += `${buildFilterValuesString(key, sortedFilterValues ?? [])}`;
        });
+    const recentSearchHash = UserUtils.hashText(orderedQuery, 2 ** 32);


Thinking more about it. What if a user explicitly types policyID:X sortOrder:asc? Should we instead just be hashing the input string instead of parts of the AST? That'd ensure anything the user types differently would be a new recent search

We cannot hash string input. My argument: when user types policyID:X sortOrder:asc and sortOrder:asc policyID:X, we will get different hashes even though the query results will be the same.

I think we should exclude policyID like @rayane-djouah said. It may create some confusion when user types policy:X into query, but:

We have a policy switcher, which is dedicated way of changing policyID, so typing policyID into SearchRouter query is the worst way to change your policyID

We don't even autocomplete policyID key, so how will a user know that such option exists.

It's unlikely that a real user will type something like policyID:31294891892741873, without the help of autocomplete.

What's more if user selects recentSearch with not the policyID he wanted, he can easily switch it on SearchResults page with policy switcher and it's not such a big problem(just like he switches sortOrder or sortBy). WDYT @rayane-djouah @luacmartins

I think we can go with your current solution for now, but:

when user types policyID:X sortOrder:asc and sortOrder:asc policyID:X

TBH I'd be ok to show both of these as different recent searches, even though they are the same search at the end of the day. My argument is that the user explicitly typed both of those, so they'd probably expect to see both in the recent search area.

We don't even autocomplete policyID key, so how will a user know that such option exists.

I think we should introduce policyID autocomplete. Maybe we need a new workspace: filter for that though, so the autocomplete shows the policy name instead of ID.

cc @JmillsExpensify @trjExpensify for your thoughts.

luacmartins · 2024-10-25T18:41:12Z

Do we have some estimate on how long it will take to put a fix on BE side @luacmartins?

@SzymczakJ backend PR is in review

JmillsExpensify · 2024-10-28T16:57:44Z

TBH I'd be ok to show both of these as different recent searches, even though they are the same search at the end of the day. My argument is that the user explicitly typed both of those, so they'd probably expect to see both in the recent search area.

I agree with Carlos on this comment.

JmillsExpensify · 2024-10-28T17:00:00Z

I think we should introduce policyID autocomplete. Maybe we need a new workspace: filter for that though, so the autocomplete shows the policy name instead of ID.

For this one, we should be careful as I'm imagining that we'd support the ability to search on multiple policies at once right? If so, then we need to introduce a way for the front-end to do the same in the workspace switcher.

luacmartins · 2024-10-28T17:58:13Z

For this one, we should be careful as I'm imagining that we'd support the ability to search on multiple policies at once right? If so, then we need to introduce a way for the front-end to do the same in the workspace switcher.

Yes. The syntax already supports this, so technically if users typed policyID:<id1>,<id2> the search would work. You're right that the workspace switcher would not work as intended though.

luacmartins

@SzymczakJ so let's update the hash to be on the input query so we always show whatever users type, regardless of it being the same query as a previous one (if the only difference is the order of filters)

SzymczakJ · 2024-10-29T14:30:20Z

But using inputQuery as a hash input will not fix this bug #51044!
For example when user types in two queries differing in only sortOrder like category:Advertising sortOrder:asc and category:Advertising sortOrder:desc in SearchRouter then we will get recentSearches list with two queries that look the same, because we don't show sortOrder there. Honestly I'm starting to think there's no good solution for this case, everything has it's pros and cons 😭

luacmartins · 2024-10-29T16:11:41Z

Yea, that's a good point, but I think it would solve the bug unless users manually type sortBy or sortOrder, no? If that's the case, I think we can live with that edge case for now since I think most users wouldn't manually type those. We could explore a future solution where we only save what users actually type.

SzymczakJ · 2024-10-30T09:25:14Z

it would solve the bug unless users manually type sortBy or sortOrder, no?

Thats actually the main root cause of the bug, what's more there will be also a bug when user changes sortOrder on search results page, which is highly probable.

I would actually go with the current solution where:

we don't have a bug that happens when user manually types sortBy or sortOrder
we don't have bug when user changes sortOrder on search results page

Like you said later we could split this into two cases:

use current solution for recentSearches that are derived from using advanced filters page
save what users actually types into search router and in that case compute recentSearchesHash on users input, so the user could see exact queries that he typed, like category:X sortOrder:A

luacmartins · 2024-10-30T15:36:16Z

I'm ok using the current logic as a stepping stone, but I think ultimately we're aiming for the behavior below, so we'll need to work on a follow up for that.

save what users actually types into search router and in that case compute recentSearchesHash on users input, so the user could see exact queries that he typed, like category:X sortOrder:A

SzymczakJ · 2024-10-30T15:49:13Z

I agree. So we need to store on BE what user typed into the search router and return it in recentSearches exactly as it was, but only in case, when it was made by SearchRouter

luacmartins · 2024-10-30T17:30:39Z

Correct. We currently store the inputQuery param, I'm not sure if we'd want to reuse that param or create a new one for it. The intent behind inputQuery was to be exactly what the user typed, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

luacmartins · 2024-10-30T17:32:20Z

@rayane-djouah let's resume reviews on this PR

luacmartins

LGTM

SzymczakJ · 2024-10-31T11:38:28Z

FYI I'll OOO on Friday and Monday.

rayane-d · 2024-10-31T21:11:09Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-11-02.at.11.29.37.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-11-02.at.11.26.38.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-11-02.at.23.25.08.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-11-02.at.23.22.50.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-11-02.at.11.13.05.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-11-02.at.11.02.30.PM.mov

rayane-d · 2024-10-31T21:11:20Z

Let's add these QA Steps:

Navigate to the Search page.
Click on the search bar icon to open the search field.
Enter any search query and press the Enter key to submit the query.
On the search results page, change the "Sort By" column contextual filter.
On the search results page, change the "Sort Order" contextual filter.
On the search results page, use the workspace switcher to select a workspace.
Click on the search bar icon again to open the search router.
Verify that the search query (entered in step 3) will only appear once in the recent searches section (no duplicate queries)

rayane-d

BUG: I'm still seeing duplicate recent searches that differ only by sortOrder, the recentSearchHash is changing when you change the sorting order:

Screen.Recording.2024-10-31.at.10.36.55.PM.mov

rayane-d · 2024-10-31T21:55:32Z

src/libs/SearchQueryUtils.ts

-    }
    orderedQuery += `${CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_ROOT_KEYS.TYPE}:${query.type}`;
    orderedQuery += ` ${CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_ROOT_KEYS.STATUS}:${query.status}`;
    orderedQuery += ` ${CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_ROOT_KEYS.SORT_BY}:${query.sortBy}`;


Suggested change

orderedQuery += ` ${CONST.SEARCH.SYNTAX_ROOT_KEYS.SORT_BY}:${query.sortBy}`;

we're incorrectly including sortBy and sortOrder in orderedQuery here for recentSearchHash and then adding them again at the end of orderedQuery for primaryHash

we need to remove these two lines

Whoops, that's probably my mistake when merging main 🙇

rayane-d · 2024-10-31T21:59:54Z

@289Adam289 Could you please address the above comment, as @SzymczakJ will be OOO according to this comment? Thank you!

289Adam289 · 2024-11-04T09:16:08Z

Hi! I was also OOO on Friday. @SzymczakJ will be back tomorrow and I think it would be best to leave addressing comments to him.

SzymczakJ · 2024-11-05T09:46:19Z

I've added the tests steps and fixed bug you mentioned @rayane-djouah

rayane-d

LGTM and tests well 👍

luacmartins

LGTM

OSBotify · 2024-11-05T19:30:26Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

github-actions · 2024-11-06T00:36:46Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.0.58-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	success ✅
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	success ✅

github-actions · 2024-11-07T12:41:49Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.0.58-2 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	skipped 🚫
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	skipped 🚫

add recentSearchHash

80fd4e7

289Adam289 approved these changes Oct 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

SzymczakJ marked this pull request as ready for review October 23, 2024 22:38

SzymczakJ requested a review from a team as a code owner October 23, 2024 22:38

melvin-bot bot requested review from getusha and removed request for a team October 23, 2024 22:38

Merge branch 'main' into @szymczak/fix-recent-searches-list

2128c91

rayane-d suggested changes Oct 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

luacmartins requested review from luacmartins and removed request for getusha October 25, 2024 15:39

luacmartins reviewed Oct 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

SzymczakJ added 2 commits October 28, 2024 09:34

don't include policyID in recent hash

855c16e

Merge branch 'main' into @szymczak/fix-recent-searches-list

283f379

luacmartins self-requested a review October 28, 2024 20:31

luacmartins requested changes Oct 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into @szymczak/fix-recent-searches-list

ada33fc

luacmartins requested review from luacmartins and rayane-d October 30, 2024 17:32

luacmartins previously approved these changes Oct 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

rayane-d suggested changes Oct 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix PR comments

4adb83c

SzymczakJ dismissed luacmartins’s stale review via 4adb83c November 5, 2024 09:37

Merge branch 'main' into @szymczak/fix-recent-searches-list

df04107

rayane-d approved these changes Nov 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from luacmartins November 5, 2024 10:34

luacmartins approved these changes Nov 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

luacmartins merged commit 74994dc into Expensify:main Nov 5, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-11-05 #52084

Closed

71 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Nov 7, 2024

[$250] [HOLD for payment 2024-11-14] [Search v2.4] - Same search query appears twice in Recent searches #51044

Closed

8 tasks

SzymczakJ deleted the @szymczak/fix-recent-searches-list branch April 8, 2025 09:12

Conversation

SzymczakJ commented Oct 23, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

289Adam289 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 23, 2024

Uh oh!

SzymczakJ commented Oct 25, 2024

Uh oh!

rayane-d left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

luacmartins Oct 25, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SzymczakJ Oct 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

luacmartins Oct 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Oct 25, 2024

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify commented Oct 28, 2024

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify commented Oct 28, 2024

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Oct 28, 2024

Uh oh!

luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SzymczakJ commented Oct 29, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Oct 29, 2024

Uh oh!

SzymczakJ commented Oct 30, 2024

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Oct 30, 2024

Uh oh!

SzymczakJ commented Oct 30, 2024

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Oct 30, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Oct 30, 2024

Uh oh!

luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SzymczakJ commented Oct 31, 2024

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Oct 31, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Oct 31, 2024

Uh oh!

rayane-d left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rayane-d Oct 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SzymczakJ Nov 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Oct 31, 2024

SzymczakJ commented Oct 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

luacmartins Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

SzymczakJ commented Oct 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

luacmartins commented Oct 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

rayane-d commented Oct 31, 2024 •

edited

Loading