[CP staging] Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail #30114

marcaaron · 2023-10-21T02:09:34Z

Details

Improve handling for Onfido checks when Onfido fails after some delay

Fixed Issues

$ #30093

Tests

Tested in https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/39342 since it's tough to simulate all the different scenarios

Offline tests

QA Steps

N/A

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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 the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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 is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review 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
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
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 */
- 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
- If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
- 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 any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
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 code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
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.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Success case

MacOS: Desktop

…vateWalletOnOnfidoFailure # Conflicts: # src/pages/settings/Wallet/WalletPage/WalletPage.js

…s://github.com/Expensify/App into marcaaron-preventActivateWalletOnOnfidoFailure

marcaaron · 2023-10-23T21:44:52Z

Gonna make this Internal QA as it it hard to test. C+ will have a tough time so removing @0xmiroslav

marcaaron · 2023-10-24T03:30:33Z

Ready for a review/merge now.

MariaHCD · 2023-10-24T06:42:46Z

Reviewer Checklist

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 included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android / native
- Android / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / Safari
- MacOS / Chrome / Safari
- MacOS / Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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 is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review 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 */
- 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 any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
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 code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
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.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

OSBotify · 2023-10-24T08:21:50Z

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

MariaHCD · 2023-10-24T08:27:23Z

Requested a CP here: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C07J32337/p1698136024406969

…letOnOnfidoFailure [CP staging] Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail (cherry picked from commit 4430ae2)

OSBotify · 2023-10-24T10:02:54Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.90-1 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

MariaHCD · 2023-10-24T12:50:15Z

Tested on web staging:

OSBotify · 2023-10-25T16:36:11Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.3.90-2 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	failure ❌
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

eVoloshchak · 2024-08-05T17:37:02Z

src/pages/settings/Wallet/WalletPage/WalletPage.js

@@ -311,6 +312,8 @@ function WalletPage({bankAccountList, betas, cardList, fundList, isLoadingPaymen

    // Determines whether or not the modal popup is mounted from the bottom of the screen instead of the side mount on Web or Desktop screens
    const isPopoverBottomMount = anchorPosition.anchorPositionTop === 0 || isSmallScreenWidth;
+    const alertTextStyle = [styles.inlineSystemMessage, styles.flexShrink1];
+    const alertViewStyle = [styles.flexRow, styles.alignItemsCenter, styles.w100, styles.ph5];


Coming from #44773
Additional horizontal padding (styles.ph5) for alertViewStyle wasn't needed, it resulted in incorrect padding for Onfido messages

marcaaron added 2 commits October 20, 2023 15:05

Handle error message

d2343ab

Add alert message

fbe33a4

marcaaron self-assigned this Oct 21, 2023

Use new hasFailedOnfido prop

3297a42

MariaHCD mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-10-31] [HOLD for payment 2023-10-30] [CRITICAL] [P2P Activation] Improve KYC delay handling #30088

Closed

MariaHCD added 2 commits October 23, 2023 11:28

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into marcaaron-preventActi…

25da768

…vateWalletOnOnfidoFailure # Conflicts: # src/pages/settings/Wallet/WalletPage/WalletPage.js

Make prettier

12a2235

MariaHCD requested a review from nkuoch October 23, 2023 09:33

nkuoch previously approved these changes Oct 23, 2023

View reviewed changes

marcaaron added 2 commits October 23, 2023 10:52

Fix conflicts

d62259e

Merge branch 'marcaaron-preventActivateWalletOnOnfidoFailure' of http…

ed89d6b

…s://github.com/Expensify/App into marcaaron-preventActivateWalletOnOnfidoFailure

marcaaron dismissed nkuoch’s stale review via ed89d6b October 23, 2023 21:09

Include correct spanish translation

861f5c6

marcaaron marked this pull request as ready for review October 23, 2023 21:42

marcaaron requested a review from a team as a code owner October 23, 2023 21:42

melvin-bot bot requested review from 0xmiros and removed request for a team October 23, 2023 21:42

marcaaron removed the request for review from 0xmiros October 23, 2023 21:42

marcaaron added the InternalQA This pull request required internal QA label Oct 23, 2023

Expensify deleted a comment from melvin-bot bot Oct 23, 2023

marcaaron added 3 commits October 23, 2023 12:09

Skip terms step if the user instantly failed Onfido

5bc7cd1

Use early return

c99ef52

remove unreachable code

c0f2e74

marcaaron changed the title ~~Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail~~ [CP staging] Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail Oct 24, 2023

nkuoch approved these changes Oct 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

MariaHCD approved these changes Oct 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

MariaHCD merged commit 4430ae2 into main Oct 24, 2023
12 of 13 checks passed

MariaHCD deleted the marcaaron-preventActivateWalletOnOnfidoFailure branch October 24, 2023 08:15

OSBotify pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2023

Merge pull request #30114 from Expensify/marcaaron-preventActivateWal…

8011729

…letOnOnfidoFailure [CP staging] Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail (cherry picked from commit 4430ae2)

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-10-24 #30224

Closed

43 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-11-02] [HOLD for payment 2023-11-01] [CRITICAL] [P2P Activation] Improve wallet enablement error handling and allow someone to retry their info once #30093

Closed

eVoloshchak reviewed Aug 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

eVoloshchak mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-08-01] [$250] Wallet : Incorrect padding on "we're reviewing..." label #44773

Closed

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[CP staging] Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail #30114

[CP staging] Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail #30114

marcaaron commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

marcaaron commented Oct 23, 2023

marcaaron commented Oct 24, 2023

MariaHCD commented Oct 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

OSBotify commented Oct 24, 2023

MariaHCD commented Oct 24, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 24, 2023

MariaHCD commented Oct 24, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 25, 2023

eVoloshchak Aug 5, 2024

[CP staging] Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail #30114

[CP staging] Prevent second attempts to activate wallet when Onfido checks fail #30114

Conversation

marcaaron commented Oct 21, 2023 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

marcaaron commented Oct 23, 2023

marcaaron commented Oct 24, 2023

MariaHCD commented Oct 24, 2023 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

OSBotify commented Oct 24, 2023

MariaHCD commented Oct 24, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 24, 2023

MariaHCD commented Oct 24, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 25, 2023

eVoloshchak Aug 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

MariaHCD commented Oct 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading