Fix/79139b - Add sticky filters to the reports page

[dmkt9]

Explanation of Change

Follow-up PR #80247

• Reports - User is unable to switch back to Expenses tab after saving search #82106: Because the query string value in the Expenses tab is always the same as in the Saved Search tab, the Expenses tab never regains focus. In this case, the default query string value in the Expenses tab will be applied.
• Reports - Filters are still applied after being cleared and returning to the same section. #82101: Because the values of allSearchAdvancedFilters and prevSearchAdvancedFiltersFormsByType are not reset when clearing filters.

This PR helps:

• The Expenses, Reports, and Chats items in the Search type menu bar within the "Explore" section will be highlighted even when we change the values of the filters.
• When navigating between these three items, the valid filter values for each search type will still be preserved. For example:
  • User clicks Reports > Reports
  • User filters by date, and user, while on the reports page
  • User clicks Expenses and gets taken to the expenses view
  • The expenses page is also filtered now by date, and user
  • User navigates back to the Reports Page
  • The filters on the reports page should be the same as before: date & user

Fixed Issues

$ #79139
PROPOSAL: #79139 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Test 1:

1. Open the Expensify app.
2. Navigate to Reports > Expenses page.
3. Change some filter values.
4. Verify that "Expenses" in the Search type menu bar is still focused.
5. With the changed filter values, navigate to the Expense Report/Chat type by clicking the "Reports/Chats" item in the Search type menu bar.
6. Verify that the valid filter values for the Expense Report/Chat type remain the same as in the previous type.
7. Repeat steps 2 to 6 starting from any item in the Explore section.

Test 2:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com.
2. Navigate to Reports > Expenses.
3. Click Filters.
4. Apply any filter and click Save Search.
5. Click the Reports tab.
6. Apply the same filter value as above.
7. Click the Expenses tab.
8. Note that the user will be switched to the Saved Search tab.
9. Click the Expenses tab again.
10. Note that the user should be switched back to the Expenses tab.

Test 3:

1. Open the staging.new.expensify.com website.
2. Open any DM. (For example: Self DM)
3. Send a message.
4. Tap on the search icon and select the option to search within the chat.
5. Search for the sent message.
6. Note that you land on "Chats" with the search still applied.
7. Tap on "Filters" > "Reset Filters" > "View Results"
8. Note that filters are cleared and you land on "Expenses"
9. Return to "Chats"
10. Note that the filters are cleared.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I followed proper code patterns (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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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 followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• 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
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• 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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Test 1:

Android: Native

android.native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.mweb.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.mweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

mac.safari.mp4

Test 2:

test2.mp4

Test 3:

test3.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@hungvu193 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]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useSearchTypeMenuSections.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/libs/actions/Session/index.ts	42.92% <100.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
src/pages/Search/SearchAdvancedFiltersPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/libs/actions/Delegate.ts	31.28% <0.00%> (-0.36%)	⬇️
src/hooks/useSearchTypeMenu.tsx	67.07% <45.45%> (-3.06%)	⬇️
src/pages/Search/SearchTypeMenu.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/hooks/useStickySearchFilters.ts	36.66% <36.66%> (ø)
src/libs/SearchUIUtils.ts	67.21% <21.87%> (-0.84%)	⬇️
... and 230 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0beda4ff25

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[hungvu193]

I'll review today

[github-actions]

🚧 @trjExpensify has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[trjExpensify]

Actioned on a build. CC: @Expensify/design on this as well

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #83457.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-cc3dc65-b8486d2-cac7ea48df0b2383009239557254d3a5e3be647e/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-cc3dc65-b8486d2-d9b0f8b604c5ab8c4c4ff9443277fd2b8a6fe982/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://83457.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[JmillsExpensify]

I might have missed something, but why are we only doing sticky filters for Expenses, Reports, and Chats? I ask because I just tested on Statements and it didn't work.

[dannymcclain]

The way we use exposed filters, and how they change between LHN items, makes this feel pretty strange IMO.

Filters that are exposed on both Reports and Expenses feel pretty good (i.e. From, Workspace, Date, Status), but filters that I apply in the filter panel feel so hidden to me that when I navigate away and come back, it's really easy to miss that there's more filters applied. For example, if I set a bunch of those filters, and then go into the filters panel and set a Total filter for reports, when I navigate to Expenses and then back to Reports, I can't see the little Filters button that shows the count of only filters that are on inside the panel, so it's not even clear that there's an "extra" filter set.

I don't really think this is a functionality problem, I think it's a visual-display-of-information problem, which will hopefully be remedied by the work Jon is currently focusing on with filters. Just wanted to note it here.

[hungvu193]

I can confirm #82106 and #82101 are fixed. I'll do more test during this weekend.

[JmillsExpensify]

Filters that are exposed on both Reports and Expenses feel pretty good (i.e. From, Workspace, Date, Status), but filters that I apply in the filter panel feel so hidden to me that when I navigate away and come back, it's really easy to miss that there's more filters applied.

I agree. Honestly, I kind of think we should hold on this PR, as I think we're exploring a lot of improvements to the filters that cause me to call into question whether we need this behavior in the first place. (As a reminder, contributors will be paid for their work at this point, no matter whether we close or merge the PR).

[JmillsExpensify]

Like just thinking out loud, but if we:

• Have improved filter UX, which always shows the filters that are selected
• Make it easy to clear those filters (and add new ones)
• Have a permanent Save button to the right of the table

Then I think we basically get the "solution" in this PR in a different way, with better UX. So I more so start to favor holding on this right now vs pushing it forward.

[trjExpensify]

but filters that I apply in the filter panel feel so hidden to me that when I navigate away and come back, it's really easy to miss that there's more filters applied.

I agree the UX improvements for filters is going to help with this immensely, but I don't think they replace someone wanting their chosen filters to be sticky on one of the LHN items in addition. I still think there's utility in that - people are finding it super annoying that if you filter, go somewhere else, come back and have to re-filter again.

[dannymcclain]

I still think there's utility in that - people are finding it super annoying that if you filter, go somewhere else, come back and have to re-filter again

I agree, though I do think this feature becomes much more welcome and valuable once it's clear what is happening. As it stands currently I worry that it will end up being more confusing. But, I'll let you and Jason battle out whether or not you think we should wait until those other improvements are live or press on with this one now.

[JmillsExpensify]

I personally find the current behavior confusing. It's not very predictable because we've implemented implicit logic, where some pages are sticky and some aren't. I agree this is coming up, though I think it's better to hold off until we have better filter UX. Because at that point it's still debatable whether we'll still move forward with this PR>

[dubielzyk-expensify]

I've been looking into this one for my filter prototypes and one thing I was trying out was having a difference between explicit filters vs implicit. Implicit being set by the LHN items and explicit being once you apply specifically yourself.

It felt good with filters like workspace etc, but it quickly got a bit more messy with other filters that either don't apply from expenses to reports, or implicit ones you change that then go away when you change LHN.

That was the closest thing I got to though.

[trjExpensify]

It's not very predictable because we've implemented implicit logic, where some pages are sticky and some aren't.

Yes, I do agree it should apply to them all really. I'm not entirely sure of the rationale for Expenses and Reports only.

[shawnborton]

Yup, I agree with that too.

[JS00001]

We have decided to close this issue out in favor of a longer-term solution. @dmkt9 @hungvu193 thank you guys for the work on this, you will still be paid out for the work!

[JmillsExpensify]

Yeah, thanks everyone for the hard work in this PR!