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 2025-03-17] [$250] Loading indicator on the Inbox page has thinner line than on the Reports page #55842
Version Number: 9.0.90-0 Reproducible in staging?: Yes Reproducible in production?: N/A - new feature, doesn't exist in prod If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: Exp Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):applausetester+100106kh@applause.expensifail.com Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team Device used: Mac 15.0 / Chrome App Component: Search
Action Performed:
Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go offline.
Go to Account settings > Troubleshoot.
Click Clear cache and restart > Reset and refresh.
Compare the thickness of loading indicator in Inbox and Reports.
Expected Result:
The loading indicator in Inbox should have the same thickness as the one on the Reports page.
Actual Result:
The loading indicator in Inbox is thinner than on the Reports page.
👋 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:
Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.1.10-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:
@hungvu193@joekaufmanexpensify@hungvu193 The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]
Got it. Was that one UI bug the only additional change handled in the PR, or was there anything else?
@joekaufmanexpensify We also update the mobile search page with a 12px spacing between TopBar and the content to be consistent with other UI with the TopBar. That's all.
@joekaufmanexpensify We also update the mobile search page with a 12px spacing between TopBar and the content to be consistent with other UI with the TopBar. That's all.
@nkdengineer@getusha thank you for confirming. I took a look at those two UI changes and it seems like they were quick CSS property changes. Is that right?
If so, while we appreciate you fitting those changes in, I don't think there was any material change in the scope or amount of work that was required to complete this PR, so I feel like additional payment wouldn't really make sense based on the added work.
In the interim, I am going to close this as I don't think payment is needed here. Please let me know if you disagree or I am wrong about anything above and I am happy to raise this to the broader team for more discussion.
Activity
melvin-bot commentedon Jan 28, 2025
Triggered auto assignment to @joekaufmanexpensify (
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.melvin-bot commentedon Jan 28, 2025
Triggered auto assignment to @Gonals (
DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.melvin-bot commentedon Jan 28, 2025
💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source
github-actions commentedon Jan 28, 2025
👋 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:
hungvu193 commentedon Jan 28, 2025
Offending PR:
#52272
It came from this line:
App/src/styles/index.ts
Line 5365 in e411125
trjExpensify commentedon Jan 28, 2025
@Expensify/design for eyes on what we want. I don't think it's a blocker really though, but should be a quick fix!
52 remaining items
melvin-bot commentedon Mar 10, 2025
The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.1.10-6 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:
If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-03-17. 🎊
For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:
melvin-bot commentedon Mar 10, 2025
@hungvu193 @joekaufmanexpensify @hungvu193 The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]
melvin-bot commentedon Mar 11, 2025
📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸
getusha commentedon Mar 11, 2025
Handled as a regression, we can close this
nkdengineer commentedon Mar 11, 2025
I think we should get the payment here, since in this PR we also fix other UI bugs like here that isn't related to the previous PR.
getusha commentedon Mar 11, 2025
Oh yes, forgot it's been a long ride addressing many issues. @joekaufmanexpensify what do you think?
joekaufmanexpensify commentedon Mar 14, 2025
Got it. Was that one UI bug the only additional change handled in the PR, or was there anything else?
nkdengineer commentedon Mar 14, 2025
@joekaufmanexpensify We also update the mobile search page with a 12px spacing between TopBar and the content to be consistent with other UI with the TopBar. That's all.
mvtglobally commentedon Mar 15, 2025
Issue not reproducible during KI retests. (First week)
melvin-bot commentedon Mar 17, 2025
Payment Summary
Upwork Job
BugZero Checklist (@joekaufmanexpensify)
joekaufmanexpensify commentedon Mar 18, 2025
@nkdengineer @getusha thank you for confirming. I took a look at those two UI changes and it seems like they were quick CSS property changes. Is that right?
If so, while we appreciate you fitting those changes in, I don't think there was any material change in the scope or amount of work that was required to complete this PR, so I feel like additional payment wouldn't really make sense based on the added work.
joekaufmanexpensify commentedon Mar 18, 2025
In the interim, I am going to close this as I don't think payment is needed here. Please let me know if you disagree or I am wrong about anything above and I am happy to raise this to the broader team for more discussion.