You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[Due for payment 2025-02-27] The type and status portion of the router does not use the correct darker text color #56559
Version Number: 9.0.95-1 Reproducible in staging?: Y Reproducible in production?: Y If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: 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 Expensify/Expensify Issue URL: Issue reported by:@shawnborton Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): Expense
Action Performed:
Navigate to report search > Expenses
Click Search and enter anything to search
Expected Result:
The type and status portion of the router use the correct darker text color
Actual Result:
The type and status portion of the router does not use the correct darker text color
Workaround:
Can the user still use Expensify without this being fixed? Have you informed them of the workaround?
Platforms:
Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?
And the styling is applied via the useMarkdownStyle hook. useMarkdownStyle uses syntax color, and in light mode, the color is set to productLight800, which appears lighter than expected.
functionuseMarkdownStyle(message: string|null=null,excludeStyles: Array<keyofMarkdownStyle>=defaultEmptyArray,styles)
....syntax: {color: theme.syntax,
...styles?.syntax,},// Alternatively, we can override it like this:if(styles){Object.keys(styles).forEach((key)=>{if(styles[key]){// Merge nested objectsstyling[key]={ ...styling[key], ...styles[key]};}});}
What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?
N/A, UI bug
What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)
N/A 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.
@289Adam289 before you start working on this. Let's first agree on the expected behavior since this is the expected behavior described in the design doc.
The only thing I think we need to change is just change the color from textSupporting to our regular text color. Any normal text that's in the router should just use our normal text color.
Let's first agree on the expected behavior since this is the expected behavior described in the design doc.
@luacmartins Should I receive payment for the review of the revert PR given that the revert wasn't performed due to a mistake / lack of testing from author / reviewer but rather a mistake in the design doc ? 🤔
1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
1b. Mistake during implementation
1c. Backend bug
1z. Other: Design doc mismatch.
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: Not needed since this issue occured due to a mistake in the design doc, see #56559 (comment) for details.
[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: N/A.
[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.
[BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.
Link to issue:
Not need for a regression test since this issue occured due to a mistake in the design doc, see #56559 (comment) for details.
Skipping the payment summary for this issue since all the assignees are employees or vendors. If this is incorrect, please manually add the payment summary SO.
Activity
melvin-bot commentedon Feb 7, 2025
Triggered auto assignment to @OfstadC (
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.linhvovan29546 commentedon Feb 8, 2025
🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2025-02-08 03:25:54 UTC.
Proposal
Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.
The type and status portion of the router does not use the correct darker text color
What is the root cause of that problem?
In
SearchAutocompleteInput, we use a markdown input.App/src/components/Search/SearchAutocompleteInput.tsx
Line 213 in b0b7709
And the styling is applied via the
useMarkdownStylehook.useMarkdownStyleuses syntax color, and in light mode, the color is set to productLight800, which appears lighter than expected.App/src/hooks/useMarkdownStyle.ts
Lines 30 to 32 in b0b7709
What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?
We can update the syntax color in light mode to a darker text color, such as
productLight900, but this change would apply to all markdown inputs.App/src/styles/theme/themes/light.ts
Line 25 in b0b7709
A safer solution is to introduce a new prop styles, to override markdownStyle.
App/src/hooks/useMarkdownStyle.ts
Lines 29 to 32 in b0b7709
Then, in SearchAutocompleteInput, we can override the markdown style like this:
App/src/components/TextInput/BaseTextInput/index.tsx
Line 89 in b0b7709
What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?
N/A, UI bug
What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)
N/A
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.
samranahm commentedon Feb 8, 2025
Related to #56560
289Adam289 commentedon Feb 10, 2025
Hi, I am Adam from SWM and I would like to work on this issue. It is a regression from my PR #56243
cc @luacmartins for visibility
OfstadC commentedon Feb 10, 2025
Thanks @289Adam289 !
luacmartins commentedon Feb 10, 2025
@289Adam289 before you start working on this. Let's first agree on the expected behavior since this is the expected behavior described in the design doc.
shawnborton commentedon Feb 10, 2025
The only thing I think we need to change is just change the color from textSupporting to our regular text color. Any normal text that's in the router should just use our normal text color.
14 remaining items
ikevin127 commentedon Feb 20, 2025
@luacmartins Should I receive payment for the review of the revert PR given that the revert wasn't performed due to a mistake / lack of testing from author / reviewer but rather a mistake in the design doc ? 🤔
luacmartins commentedon Feb 21, 2025
Yea, you should
ikevin127 commentedon Feb 25, 2025
BugZero Checklist:
Bug classification
Source of bug:
Where bug was reported:
Who reported the bug:
[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: Not needed since this issue occured due to a mistake in the design doc, see #56559 (comment) for details.
[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: N/A.
[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.
[BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.
Link to issue:
Not need for a regression test since this issue occured due to a mistake in the design doc, see #56559 (comment) for details.
melvin-bot commentedon Feb 27, 2025
Skipping the payment summary for this issue since all the assignees are employees or vendors. If this is incorrect, please manually add the payment summary SO.
ikevin127 commentedon Feb 27, 2025
Incorrect, I require payment for reviewing the PR - confirmed here, BZ Checklist completed ✅
luacmartins commentedon Feb 27, 2025
@ikevin127 assigned you to the issue. @OfstadC we need to process payment to @ikevin127 for the PR review.
OfstadC commentedon Feb 27, 2025
@ikevin127 - Offer sent here
ikevin127 commentedon Feb 27, 2025
@OfstadC Offer accepted, thank you!
OfstadC commentedon Feb 27, 2025
Payment Summary