[Workspace feeds] Assign card list missing search bar with 8+ cards

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: Reproducible in staging?: Needs reproduction Reproducible in production?: Needs reproduction 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: @joekaufmanexpensify Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): quality

Action Performed:

Prerequisite: Members and company cards added in workspace , 8+cards added to the account

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Choose the workspace from settings
3. Start assign card flow

Expected Result:

Should have search field if there are 8+ cards

Actual Result:

Search field is missing

Workaround:

unknown

Platforms:

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

• [ ] Android: Standalone
• [ ] Android: HybridApp
• [ ] Android: mWeb Chrome
• [ ] iOS: Standalone
• [ ] iOS: HybridApp
• [ ] iOS: mWeb Safari
• [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• [ ] MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/74abfd81-f34c-44e0-b413-17a8f18bb2fd

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Triggered auto assignment to @zanyrenney (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[bot]]

Triggered auto assignment to @marcaaron (AutoAssignerNewDotQuality)

[m-natarajan]

BZ team member, Callstack will work on this issue, please wait for them to comment before moving the issue forward.

[mountiny]

Handling this as part of the project I have worked on

[VickyStash]

Hi, I'm Viktoryia from Callstack - expert contributor group - and I would like to work on this issue.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

assigned!

[VickyStash]

I've prepared a Draft PR, but there are some problems with open keyboard views on mobile, especially on small devices. I'm going to improve it tomorrow.

[VickyStash]

It looks like to fix the keyboard overlapping issue we need to change the scrolling on the cards selection screen.

Right now, the description text and the search bar are fixed, which makes it be overlapped by the keyboard:

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1c1e7ca8-b238-486c-b694-0647e56e8d11

But if we make the screen scrollable overall, we at least can see the input:

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e04bc3d9-b4c0-490c-8192-300325939568

@joekaufmanexpensify @mountiny Please, let me know what do you think and if you have any other ideas about the way it should look, thank you!

[mountiny]

cc @Expensify/design which appraoch do we use across the app here

[dubielzyk-expensify]

Hmm. I don't think we should even fix the (1)-(2)-(3)-(4) which would make everything scrollable except for the top header with the back button, but keen to hear what the other designers think. Especially because with a keyboard the screen real estate is so small

[shawnborton]

Oh boy this is a tricky one. Do we have other examples of how this is currently working in the app, where we have a progress stepper + search bar + list?

I don't feel too strongly whether we keep the numbers at the top fixed or not - happy to let @dubielzyk-expensify and @dannymcclain decide that one.

[VickyStash]

So @dubielzyk-expensify @dannymcclain should I try to make the page fully scrollable for this step? Including stepper?

[dannymcclain]

Yes I agree with Jon. I think only the header should be fixed and we can let the rest of the page scroll.

[VickyStash]

The PR is ready for the review!

[mountiny]

PR merged

[melvin-bot[bot]]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot[bot]]

The solution for this issue has been :rocket: deployed to production :rocket: in version 9.0.60-3 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period :calendar:. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/51955

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-20. :confetti_ball:

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

• @VickyStash does not require payment (Contractor)
• @dukenv0307 requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@dukenv0307 @zanyrenney @dukenv0307 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[bot]]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Contributor: @VickyStash is from an agency-contributor and not due payment
• ROLE: @dukenv0307 paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@zanyrenney)

• [ ] I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• [ ] I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants//hired)
• [ ] I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• [ ] I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[mountiny]

@dukenv0307 can you please add the checklist but I dont think we need a test for this one specific bug, then we can close as payments will be handled separately

[dukenv0307]

BugZero Checklist:

• [x] [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• [x] 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• [ ] 1b. Mistake during implementation
• [ ] 1c. Backend bug
• [ ] 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• [x] 2a. Reported on production
• [ ] 2b. Reported on staging (deploy blocker)
• [ ] 2c. Reported on a PR
• [ ] 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• [ ] 3a. Expensify user
• [ ] 3b. Expensify employee
• [ ] 3c. Contributor
• [x] 3d. QA
• [ ] 3z. Other:

• [x] [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: This is the new feature

• [x] [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

• [x] [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. N/A

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [ ] [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Test:

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[mountiny]

As discussed above, I think we can close this one now, regression tests are going to be added this week with Joe and payments handled separately