Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Adds Client-side Violations when creating money requests #32528
Adds Client-side Violations when creating money requests #32528
Changes from 13 commits
e4135d1
8fe667d
1cd0e08
22ee011
441788c
0cf233c
6f84a87
57f2aa8
f6f9cac
9a041cc
150487e
5b8bcc5
b2128e5
6c30158
705329c
c93a59d
b6e959f
f0c609b
dbf3e5a
9783c47
66d2767
3c0b52c
1547445
6c3a853
633199b
919f967
9885e31
4b6f463
0f91f22
e5b607e
a8741ab
8d417a9
34c080e
ab06fbe
da3469e
9b2fb39
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm pretty sure this and


categories
should be objects. They're{}
in defaultProps, and in Onyx they're objects as wellThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why remove this? I think this is wrong, because having a separate withOnyx makes the keys in it "dependent" on the values of the previous withOnyx, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wasn't aware of this! I'll ask in the open-source channel, but I'm happy to change this back.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When/why can this be called without a policy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So it looks that when this file is converted to TS that the
policy
will be of theOnyxEntry
type which could return null so this was just to go ahead and account for that. Once it is converted it can easily just be replaced with optional chaining likepolicy?.id
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I asked about the multiple
withOnyx
thing from the comment above on slackBut is it possible that this is because these are no longer defined in a separate
withOnyx
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I got an error
I think the
policy
data is not yet found. Either we go with the multiple onyx or use thereport.policyID
instead.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated to use
report.policyID
.