[HOLD for payment 2023-11-22] [HOLD for payment 2023-11-21] [Payment due meow] Task - Description - When strikethrough is entered, the markdown is displayed incorrectly in the task description

[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!

---

Version Number: 1.3.98.0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: n
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: Applause - Internal team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Go to https://staging.new.expensify.com/
2. Tap on fab
3. Tap assign task
4. Enter title and tap next
5. Select share somewhere
6. Tap confirm task
7. Tap description
8. Enter # 456
   fgjjjh
9. Tap save

Expected Result:

When strikethrough markdown is entered, same strikethrough markdown must be displayed in task description.

Actual Result:

When strikethrough is entered, the markdown is displayed incorrectly in the task description

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6271903_1699655121670.steike.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

[kbecciv]

Not reproduce in production

VID_20231111_033841.mp4

[OSBotify]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open StagingDeployCash deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @chiragsalian (Engineering), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4319 for more details.

[aimane-chnaif]

This came from #27414. I think better to revert as it caused couple regressions (this one and #31199)
@chiragsalian do you agree?

[chiragsalian]

thank you for that @aimane-chnaif.
Yeah i think a revert would be nice because i don't want to rush a quick fix and break more things. I'll test and prepare a revert PR.

[aimane-chnaif]

ok, happy to review and test PR

[chiragsalian]

The revert PR to review is here - #31219. I'll clean it up in the meantime.