[C+ Checklist Needs Completion] [$2000] Desktop - Secondary login successfully unlinked isn't displayed on Desktop App

[kbecciv]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Issue found when executing PR #18695

Action Performed:

1. Add a secondary login account, and leave it unverified
2. Open new tab
3. Navigate to sign in page
4. Enter the unverified email address
5. Click on Unlink button
6. Open email account, click on 'the validation link here' to unlink the account

Expected Result:

Verify 'Secondary login successfully unlinked' message is displayed

Actual Result:

Error "It looks like there was an error with your validation link or it has expired" is displayed on Desktop App. Secondary login successfully unlinked isn't displayed on Desktop App

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android / native
• Android / Chrome
• iOS / native
• iOS / Safari
• MacOS / Chrome / Safari
• MacOS / Desktop

Version Number: 1.3.18.1

Reproducible in staging?: yes

Reproducible in production?: yes

If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:

Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):

Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856

Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation

https://platform.applause.com/services/links/v1/external/f7afb6d068adfdbdde0f1d6ae5706bb5c712c83708c22ab676054146ec813281

Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:

Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Slack conversation:

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c02e30a7c9039200
• Upwork Job ID: 1663518060802252800
• Last Price Increase: 2023-06-19

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @greg-schroeder (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

Bug0 Triage Checklist (Main S/O)

• This "bug" occurs on a supported platform (ensure Platforms in OP are ✅)
• This bug is not a duplicate report (check E/App issues and #expensify-bugs)
  • If it is, comment with a link to the original report, close the issue and add any novel details to the original issue instead
• This bug is reproducible using the reproduction steps in the OP. S/O
  • If the reproduction steps are clear and you're unable to reproduce the bug, check with the reporter and QA first, then close the issue.
  • If the reproduction steps aren't clear and you determine the correct steps, please update the OP.
• This issue is filled out as thoroughly and clearly as possible
  • Pay special attention to the title, results, platforms where the bug occurs, and if the bug happens on staging/production.
• I have reviewed and subscribed to the linked Slack conversation to ensure Slack/Github stay in sync

[hoangzinh]

Proposal

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

Desktop - Secondary login successfully unlinked isn't displayed on Desktop App

What is the root cause of that problem?

According to current implementation, when we open a deep link, it also render that link behind the Alert "Open New Expensify?" => It triggers code to unlink the account with the validateCode behind the Alert already => When we open that link in desktop, because the validateCode is already used in web => so it's invalid

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

According to comment here #19681 (comment). It seems it was intended design that we should not show the "Open New Expensify?" prompt on Desktop if we open an unlink URL in Web browser. In order to do it, I think in DeeplinkWrapper component of Web, we should early exist as well if the current route is unlink.

App/src/components/DeeplinkWrapper/index.website.js

Lines 17 to 20 in cd09dc9

	if (!this.isMacOSWeb() || CONFIG.ENVIRONMENT === CONST.ENVIRONMENT.DEV) {
	return;
	}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

When we open a magic link to login, we have a logic so that if user opens with a fresh session (usually mean user opens link incognito or requests sign in in desktop but open link in web browser), we won't allow user to use this code to sign in

App/src/pages/ValidateLoginPage/index.website.js

Lines 81 to 83 in 7ec6971

	if (isSignedIn || !login) {
	return;
	}

But instead, we will show a redirect page:

I think we can do same behavior for unlink account by magic link.

More implementation details:

• We can create a index.website.js version for UnlinkLoginPage same as we did for Sign in by magic link page.
• Then we will check if user opens the unlink with a fresh session, we won't allow user to trigger unlink with codes but we will show a redirect page:
  
• If user click on the "just unlink here" text link, we will trigger those LOC

Recording result

Screen.Recording.2023-06-23.at.05.54.36.-.desktop.mp4

[melvin-bot]

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

[greg-schroeder]

Reviewing

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01c02e30a7c9039200

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @stephanieelliott (External), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/8582 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

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

[greg-schroeder]

@Santhosh-Sellavel thoughts on the proposal here?

[hoangzinh]

Please hold-on review my proposal here #19681 (comment). Because we're still in discussion with this approach #17724 (comment)
Feel free to review other proposals. I will let us know whenever my proposal is ready. Thanks

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

@greg-schroeder No other proposals to review here.

[greg-schroeder]

ok!

[greg-schroeder]

No updated proposals yet, will give it a couple more days before tossing it to Callstack or SWM

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[hoangzinh]

@francoisl I created a new PR to implement our discussion so far #23738

[greg-schroeder]

Work continues on the PR, looks like @Santhosh-Sellavel is reviewing

[greg-schroeder]

Last update: #23738 (comment)

[melvin-bot]

Based on my calculations, the pull request did not get merged within 3 working days of assignment. Please, check out my computations here:

• when @hoangzinh got assigned: 2023-06-26 20:31:11 Z
• when the PR got merged: 2023-08-11 22:28:16 UTC
• days elapsed: 34

On to the next one 🚀

[greg-schroeder]

Awaiting deploy to prod

[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 1.3.54-13 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Fix App show error when open unlink in Desktop App  #23738

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2023-08-24. 🎊

After the hold period is over and BZ checklist items are completed, please complete any of the applicable payments for this issue, and check them off once done.

• External issue reporter
• Contributor that fixed the issue
• Contributor+ that helped on the issue and/or PR

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

• @hoangzinh requires payment
• @Santhosh-Sellavel does not require payment (Eligable for Manual Requests)

As a reminder, here are the bonuses/penalties that should be applied for any External issue:

• Merged PR within 3 business days of assignment - 50% bonus
• Merged PR more than 9 business days after assignment - 50% penalty

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@Santhosh-Sellavel] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@Santhosh-Sellavel] 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:
• [@Santhosh-Sellavel] A discussion in #expensify-bugs 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:
• [@Santhosh-Sellavel] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@Santhosh-Sellavel] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@greg-schroeder] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[greg-schroeder]

Okay so it looks like this one took a fair amount of time to be merged following the assignment: #19681 (comment)

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

Yeah, we had active discussions on deciding the outcome post-assigning and also the issue was on hold for some period.
So can we have the flat fee here, thanks!

[greg-schroeder]

Sounds good! Processing

[greg-schroeder]

Offer made to @hoangzinh - you can request payment via NewDot @Santhosh-Sellavel. All that's left is the C+ checklist

[greg-schroeder]

Awaiting checklist

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

I think we can skip the checklist. IMO this is not a regression, we intentionally wanted all URLs to be deep links. Now we just disabled one here and also improved the unlink flow on the web & other platforms.

Thoughts @francoisl?

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

@greg-schroeder Can you post a payment summary message, thanks!

[greg-schroeder]

Payment summary:

Contributor: $2000 (flat, no bonus/penalty)
C+: $2000 (flat, no bonus/penalty)

closing as checklist is complete as well. next up is @JmillsExpensify to confirm payment

[JmillsExpensify]

Reviewed the details for @Santhosh-Sellavel. $2,000 payment approved via NewDot based on BZ summary.