fix: unread chat is not bolded in the search router by nkdengineer · Pull Request #69824 · Expensify/App

nkdengineer · 2025-09-03T20:56:49Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #69722
PROPOSAL: #69722 (comment)

Tests

Log in with a new account.
Create a workspace.
Go to workspace chat.
Send a message in the workspace chat and mark it unread.
Open another chat.
Open search router.
Verify that: Unread chat will be bolded in the search router.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

a.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

am.mov

iOS: Native

i.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

im.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

w.mov

MacOS: Desktop

dk.mov

melvin-bot · 2025-09-03T21:04:23Z

@Ollyws 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]

srikarparsi · 2025-09-03T21:28:08Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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.ts 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
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: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

trjExpensify

I can see the argument that the router is just a list of recent chat results, and doesn't have unread/read logic or GBR/RBR. It sounds like from here we landed on having it for now - so this is fixing a regression. 👍

CC'ing @mountiny @sosek108 for vis though too as the regression came from this PR apparently.

mountiny

@srikarparsi can you please get a C+ to review this and also make sure @nkdengineer finds a solution that keeps the method pure (or at least does not make it less pure)

@sosek108 since this seems to be regression from your PR, do you have any suggestions on how to fix it?

mountiny · 2025-09-08T18:20:54Z

src/libs/OptionsListUtils/index.ts

+        const chatReport = allReports?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${report.chatReportID}`];
+        const oneTransactionThreadReportID = getOneTransactionThreadReportID(report, chatReport, allReportActions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${report.reportID}`]);
+        const oneTransactionThreadReport = allReports?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${oneTransactionThreadReportID}`];
+        result.isUnread = isUnread(report, oneTransactionThreadReport);


This is making the method impure, or making it less pure...

srikarparsi · 2025-09-09T03:13:26Z

Yes, just posted in contributor-plus

sosek108 · 2025-09-09T09:08:28Z

isUnread needs:

report.lastReadTime
report.lastMentionedTime
lastVisibleActionCreated

to prepare formula for isUnread: report.lastReadTime < (report.lastVisibleActionCreated ?? '') || report.lastReadTime < report.lastMentionedTime.

impure call to allReports is to calculate lastVisibleActionCreated, but report's object contains this value itself:

can we use this value instead of getting it from oneTransactionThreadReport?

mountiny · 2025-09-09T12:56:48Z

@trjExpensify I would think that not having to add the unread logic here would simplify the logic a lot and the performance will be much better. Do you think we could change that decision taken from this perspective

@sosek108 so weird it needs to know all three reports and also load the report actions

sosek108 · 2025-09-09T13:15:32Z

@mountiny I've tested proposed solution (with accessing allreports with simple report.lastVisibleActionCreated and results are same with my test cases, but I don't know if report.lastVisibleActionCreated is always up to date.

trjExpensify · 2025-09-10T16:32:56Z

@trjExpensify I would think that not having to add the unread logic here would simplify the logic a lot and the performance will be much better. Do you think we could change that decision taken from this perspective

I'm open to it. I'd take performance over unread and GBR/RBRs in recent chats personally. CC: @Expensify/design

dannymcclain · 2025-09-10T16:43:23Z

Personally I'm on board with that as well. I'm of the mind that these are two different contexts and that showing the chat status in the Router isn't super duper critical. I think @shawnborton felt differently though, so I definitely want to get his thoughts before making any decisions.

(Might be worth noting that in Slack's chat switcher, they do not display read vs. unread status AFAIK)

shawnborton · 2025-09-10T17:33:31Z

My thinking was that the search router should feel identical to the LHN, since it displays chat rows the same way the LHN does more or less. I don't feel strongly though, I'm fine with defaulting to the default style where the chat name is always bold.

dubielzyk-expensify · 2025-09-11T00:44:15Z

I'd take performance over unread and GBR/RBRs in recent chats personally.

Same. Though I see the consistency argument, I think the context is different and if we get performance gains from it, then I'd probably rather take that

mountiny · 2025-09-11T21:59:14Z

Seems like we are ok to remove the bold/ unread state from the Search router. @nkdengineer @sosek108 @allroundexperts can you make sure then the current code is as performant as possible given this?

srikarparsi · 2025-09-12T07:07:21Z

Seems like we are ok to remove the bold/ unread state from the Search router. @nkdengineer @sosek108 @allroundexperts can you make sure then the current code is as performant as possible given this?

I think if this is the case, we can actually close this PR since this issue wouldn't be valid anymore

srikarparsi · 2025-09-12T07:08:33Z

Going to close it out since it seems like we've reached that consensus but please feel free to re-open if this is needed

fix: unread chat is not bolded in the search router

4969df6

melvin-bot bot assigned nkdengineer Sep 3, 2025

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2025 21:04

nkdengineer requested review from a team as code owners September 3, 2025 21:04

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Ollyws September 3, 2025 21:04

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team September 3, 2025 21:04

Merge branch 'main' into fix/69722

f0f72b4

srikarparsi requested review from srikarparsi and removed request for Ollyws September 3, 2025 21:28

trjExpensify approved these changes Sep 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

mountiny requested changes Sep 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

srikarparsi requested a review from allroundexperts September 9, 2025 03:16

srikarparsi closed this Sep 12, 2025

srikarparsi mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2025

[$250] Search - Unread chat is not bolded in the search router #69722

Closed

8 tasks

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Sep 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 3, 2025

Uh oh!

srikarparsi commented Sep 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mountiny Sep 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

srikarparsi commented Sep 9, 2025

Uh oh!

sosek108 commented Sep 9, 2025

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Sep 9, 2025

Uh oh!

sosek108 commented Sep 9, 2025

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Sep 10, 2025

Uh oh!

dannymcclain commented Sep 10, 2025

Uh oh!

shawnborton commented Sep 10, 2025

Uh oh!

dubielzyk-expensify commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

mountiny commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

srikarparsi commented Sep 12, 2025

Uh oh!

srikarparsi commented Sep 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

nkdengineer commented Sep 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

srikarparsi commented Sep 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading