Skip to content
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

feat: use correct report field title for money request reports #34877

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

Details

This PR edits the money request reports such that they use the correct report title if one is enforced by setting up the report fields.

Fixed Issues

$ #33131
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  1. Open any expense report.
  2. Execute the following in console, replacing the policyID with the policyID of the policy the opened report is attached to:
Onyx.set('policyReportFields_47FB5109E0654E15', {
    text_title: {
        "defaultValue": "{report:type} #{report:reportID}",
        "fieldID": "text_title",
        "name": "Title",
        "orderWeight": 0,
        "type": "formula",

    },
    field_id_TEST: {
        "defaultValue": null,
        "fieldID": "field_id_TEST",
        "name": "Tax Code",
        "orderWeight": 1,
        "type": "text",
    },
    field_id_ANOTHER_ONE: {

        "defaultValue": "option A",
        "fieldID": "field_id_ANOTHER_ONE",
        "name": "Project",
        "orderWeight": 2,
        "type": "dropdown",
     	"values": ["option1", "option2", "option3"]
    },
    field_id_DATE_FIELD: {
        "defaultValue": "2023-11-19",
        "fieldID": "field_id_DATE_FIELD",
        "name": "Effective Date",
        "orderWeight": 3,
        "type": "date",
    }
})
  1. Enable canUseReportFields beta in Permissions.ts file.
  2. Verify that the money request report title as expense #reportID.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

  1. Open any expense report.
  2. Execute the following in console, replacing the policyID with the policyID of the policy the opened report is attached to:
Onyx.set('policyReportFields_47FB5109E0654E15', {
    text_title: {
        "defaultValue": "{report:type} #{report:reportID}",
        "fieldID": "text_title",
        "name": "Title",
        "orderWeight": 0,
        "type": "formula",

    },
    field_id_TEST: {
        "defaultValue": null,
        "fieldID": "field_id_TEST",
        "name": "Tax Code",
        "orderWeight": 1,
        "type": "text",
    },
    field_id_ANOTHER_ONE: {

        "defaultValue": "option A",
        "fieldID": "field_id_ANOTHER_ONE",
        "name": "Project",
        "orderWeight": 2,
        "type": "dropdown",
     	"values": ["option1", "option2", "option3"]
    },
    field_id_DATE_FIELD: {
        "defaultValue": "2023-11-19",
        "fieldID": "field_id_DATE_FIELD",
        "name": "Effective Date",
        "orderWeight": 3,
        "type": "date",
    }
})
  1. Enable canUseReportFields beta in Permissions.ts file.
  2. Verify that the money request report title as expense #reportID.
  • 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 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(theme.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 the PR modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
  • 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Skipping because I'm having issues with android build.

Android: mWeb Chrome Screenshot 2024-01-22 at 6 02 08 PM
iOS: Native Screenshot 2024-01-22 at 6 00 26 PM
iOS: mWeb Safari Screenshot 2024-01-22 at 5 56 57 PM
MacOS: Chrome / Safari Screenshot 2024-01-22 at 5 54 35 PM
MacOS: Desktop Screenshot 2024-01-22 at 5 56 13 PM

@allroundexperts allroundexperts requested a review from a team as a code owner January 22, 2024 13:03
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from cubuspl42 and removed request for a team January 22, 2024 13:03
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jan 22, 2024

@cubuspl42 Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

@@ -53,8 +55,8 @@ function MoneyReportView({report, policyReportFields, shouldShowHorizontalRule}:
StyleUtils.getColorStyle(theme.textSupporting),
];

const sortedPolicyReportFields = useMemo(
() => policyReportFields.sort(({orderWeight: firstOrderWeight}, {orderWeight: secondOrderWeight}) => firstOrderWeight - secondOrderWeight),
const sortedPolicyReportFields = useMemo<PolicyReportField[]>(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the <PolicyReportField[]> syntax necessary?

const sortedPolicyReportFields = useMemo(
() => policyReportFields.sort(({orderWeight: firstOrderWeight}, {orderWeight: secondOrderWeight}) => firstOrderWeight - secondOrderWeight),
const sortedPolicyReportFields = useMemo<PolicyReportField[]>(
(): PolicyReportField[] => policyReportFields.sort(({orderWeight: firstOrderWeight}, {orderWeight: secondOrderWeight}) => firstOrderWeight - secondOrderWeight),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

policyReportFields.sort

Please use toSorted!

I know that you just touched this part, but you're aware of what this code does, right? We're mutating the array inside the useMemo builder.

@@ -1907,6 +1907,7 @@ export default {
report: {
genericCreateReportFailureMessage: 'Error inesperado al crear el chat. Por favor, inténtalo más tarde',
genericAddCommentFailureMessage: 'Error inesperado al añadir el comentario. Por favor, inténtalo más tarde',
genericUpdateReportFieldFailureMessage: 'Error inesperado al actualizar el campo. Por favor, inténtalo más tarde',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this translation approved?

@@ -457,6 +458,19 @@ Onyx.connect({
callback: (value) => (allPolicies = value),
});

let allPolicyReportFields: OnyxCollection<PolicyReportFields>;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I hope it's not one of these collections we're nuking and un-nuking all over again...

Copy link
Contributor Author

@allroundexperts allroundexperts Jan 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you mean @cubuspl42? This is a new collection that we built specifically for the report fields feature.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is (or might be?) a pattern that sometimes we add an Onyx-synchronized in-memory collection just to nuke it later for performance reasons. But I don't have any sources handy right now. Likely we'll be fine 🤷‍♂️

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm... The only reason why I used it like this was because this function is being used at a lot of places and getting this in all of those places might cause un-needed re-renders. Besides, I see that we're still doing this for report and policies.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, it was a general comment, not a change request. This one doesn't need a resolution.

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

Bump on the review @cubuspl42

Comment on lines 1945 to 1946
const reportFields = Object.entries(allPolicyReportFields ?? {}).find(([key]) => key.replace(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY_REPORT_FIELDS, '') === report?.policyID)?.[1];
const titleReportField = Object.values(reportFields ?? {})?.find((field) => field.type === 'formula');
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we extract one or two helper functions here? Long chain of invocations, giving it some name could help the readability

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

@cubuspl42
Copy link
Contributor

correct-field-title-issue-1-web.mp4

Am I doing something wrong?

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

correct-field-title-issue-1-web.mp4
Am I doing something wrong?

No. What's the issue here?

@cubuspl42
Copy link
Contributor

cubuspl42 commented Jan 26, 2024

This thing, I believe:

image

It appears on its own.

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

This thing, I believe:

image

It appears on its own.

That's expected because you have the beta turned on. We'll be optimising it further in #35043

@cubuspl42
Copy link
Contributor

Can we hold on that issue, or on something else? The current behavior doesn't seem to be working at all. I understand that it's meant to be iterative, but can't we settle on some stable iteration that doesn't result in glitches?

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can we hold on that issue, or on something else? The current behavior doesn't seem to be working at all. I understand that it's meant to be iterative, but can't we settle on some stable iteration that doesn't result in glitches?

I think holding this would be a little difficult because these changes are sort of required for that issue as well. Thinking about it again, I found it much easier to combine this change into my backend integration PR as it makes the whole flow much easier to test. As a result, I'm closing this PR in favour of #34483

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants