For Support

The symptom this fixes

A clinic reports: "A patient says they messaged us on WhatsApp, WhatsApp shows the message as delivered/read on their phone, but it never shows up in our Dentolize Conversations inbox, and our bot never replied."

Before this fix, that could genuinely happen — but only under a narrow condition: it required the patient's very first message (or two near-simultaneous messages from a brand-new contact, e.g. rapid double-texting, or a "Click to WhatsApp" ad opening two sessions) to race against another delivery for the same contact. Returning contacts with an existing conversation row were never affected — the failure only happens on first-contact creation.

What changed

Now, when that race happens, the message lands on whichever conversation row actually got created instead of being dropped. The patient's message and the bot's automatic reply both go through normally. From the clinic's perspective there should no longer be a way to lose a first message this way.

What is still a known limitation, not a bug to re-report

If a patient is recognized under two different identifiers — for example, a WhatsApp anonymous/business-scoped ID that later resolves to their real phone number, or vice versa — it's possible for them to end up with two separate conversation rows in edge cases, rather than one merged thread. This PR explicitly does not merge those. If a clinic reports "I see the same patient twice in my WhatsApp inbox," that's this known, separate limitation — not a regression from this fix. Escalate it as a distinct issue rather than reopening this one.

What to ask a clinic reporting a "lost message"

1. Is this the contact's first-ever message to the clinic, or a message in an

existing, ongoing conversation? (This fix only covers the first-contact case.)

1. Roughly when did it happen — before or after this fix shipped? Check the

deploy date against the message timestamp.

1. Does the patient's phone number or WhatsApp handle show up twice in the

Conversations list under different names/numbers? If so, this is the known "two identifiers, two rows" limitation above, not a lost message.