Exclude concierge links from OldDot link handling

[arosiclair]

Details

Excludes concierge links from link handling since they cannot be properly parsed and lead to an error page. Seamless transitions with authTokens also shouldn't be necessary for internal coaches and employees.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/220219

Tests

1. Copy a concierge chat link
2. In NewDot, start a chat and send the concierge link
3. Click the link in the chat
4. Verify the concierge chat is opened successfully
5. Open OldDot, navigate to the Reports page, and copy the URL
6. Sign out of OldDot
7. In NewDot, paste and send the Reports page link
8. Click the link in the chat
9. Verify you're signed back into OldDot and the reports page opens successfully.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (PR Author) Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • MacOS / Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • Any functional components have the displayName property
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

PR Reviewer Checklist

The Contributor+ will copy/paste it into a new comment and complete it after the author checklist is completed

• I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
• I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • MacOS / Desktop
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text shown in the product was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
  • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
• I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • Any functional components have the displayName property
  • The file is named correctly
  • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
  • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

QA Steps

1. Find a valid concierge chat link to test with (ask in #success-coach if you can't find one)
2. Use this concierge link to follow the steps in the Tests section on staging (https://staging.new.expensify.com and https://staging.expensify.com)

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Screenshots

Web

Mobile Web

Desktop

iOS

Android

[aldo-expensify]

Heh, I remember I reviewed the PR that introduced this small bug: #9450 (comment)

I'm not sure if this should have been handled in the same place:

App/src/libs/actions/Link.js

Lines 42 to 48 in 9a76034

	function buildOldDotURL(shortLivedAuthToken) {
	const hasHashParams = url.indexOf('#') !== -1;
	const hasURLParams = url.indexOf('?') !== -1;
	// If the URL contains # or ?, we can assume they don't need to have the `?` token to start listing url parameters.
	return `${CONFIG.EXPENSIFY.EXPENSIFY_URL}${url}${hasHashParams || hasURLParams ? '&' : '?'}authToken=${shortLivedAuthToken}&email=${encodeURIComponent(currentUserEmail)}`;
	}

when we decide how to append the token.

At that time the problem was logsearch urls, now it is concierge

@johnmlee101 thoughts?

[johnmlee101]

Ahhhh I see. The problem is the concierge chat has a /#/ in the link. Maybe we can just exclude those and fix it in a single line or two.

[aldo-expensify]

Ahhhh I see. The problem is the concierge chat has a /#/ in the link. Maybe we can just exclude those and fix it in a single line or two.

Yes.. I guess the question is... are we interested in putting the shortLivedAuthToken in the concierge chat URL? if we are not, I think the PR is fine. If we were interested, then we should fix it in the mentioned function...

thinking a bit more about I don't see a good reason to try to attach the shortLivedAuthToken to this url, and I tried testing it (fixing manually the URL) and it didn't logged me in.. so 🤷

[johnmlee101]

Yes.. I guess the question is... are we interested in putting the shortLivedAuthToken in the concierge chat URL? if we are not, I think the PR is fine. If we were interested, then we should fix it in the mentioned function...

Ah you're right, we don't need it

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @madmax330 (InternalQA), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/5042 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

@aldo-expensify looks like this was merged without passing tests. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[aldo-expensify]

Not an emergency: I only see the "warnCPLabel" check not done, the rest all passed.

[arosiclair]

This early InternalQA assignment seems weird so I did it myself and looks good. Concierge links open without issue:

Screen.Recording.2022-08-18.at.10.38.23.AM.mov

[arosiclair]

However transition links to OldDot don't automatically sign you in because of the following PR and Issue:

• Fix anchor renderer for links in report messages & clean up #10144
• [Bug] IOS/Android - Unable to open links via App. #10431

[parasharrajat]

@arosiclair May I know how #10144 is causing this issue? Also, do you have an example that I can follow to test that transition links to OldDot ?

[arosiclair]

Not sure as it seems to be working fine in dev with the latest on main, but not on staging as it was reported in that issue. I'm just following the test steps I added on this PR.

[sketchydroide]

@madmax330 have you started the QA for this, keeping track here
Ignore seems like there was more than one assgined to do the QA