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

Refactor: reuse ValidateCodeActionModal #49445

Merged
merged 33 commits into from
Oct 21, 2024

Conversation

getusha
Copy link
Contributor

@getusha getusha commented Sep 19, 2024

@hungvu193

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #49270
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

New contact method

  1. Open profile page
  2. Navigate to Contact method > New Contact Method
  3. Enter a new account
  4. Add
  5. Verify you’re navigated to magic code verification page
  6. Enter the magic code received
  7. Verify that the contact method Is added and you’re navigated to contact method list page

Verify contact method

  1. Open profile page
  2. Navigate to Contact method > New Contact Method
  3. Press on unvalidated contact method
  4. Verify you’re navigated to a magic code verification page
  5. Enter the magic code sent to the new contact method
  6. Verify the new contact method Is validated and you’re navigated to contact method list page

Copilot: Delegated access

  1. Enable NewDotCopilot beta
  2. Add copilot > Select an account
  3. Press Limited > Add copilot
  4. Verify you’re navigated to magic code verification page
  5. Enter the magic code that was sent to your primary account
  6. Verify that the copilot account is added
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as tests

  • 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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
Screen.Recording.2024-10-17.at.9.10.59.at.night.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-10-18.at.9.48.07.in.the.morning.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-10-18.at.10.16.13.in.the.morning.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-10-18.at.9.42.45.in.the.morning.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-10-17.at.2.26.22.in.the.afternoon.mov
Screen.Recording.2024-10-17.at.8.54.26.in.the.evening.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-10-18.at.9.16.26.in.the.morning.mov

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

Note:
We should also need to make sure our temporary contact method has the same format with the contact method that will be sent from our BE

#48628 (comment)

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

@getusha mind looking at this convo and let me know your thoughts? 😄

@getusha
Copy link
Contributor Author

getusha commented Sep 24, 2024

@hungvu193 are you able to create account using a phone number?

Screen.Recording.2024-09-24.at.11.19.22.in.the.morning.mov

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

@hungvu193 are you able to create account using a phone number?

Screen.Recording.2024-09-24.at.11.19.22.in.the.morning.mov

I'm not, Unfortunately :/

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

Testing now 👀

@getusha getusha changed the title refactor: reuse ValidateCodeActionModal Refactor: reuse ValidateCodeActionModal Sep 24, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we might need to delete this page right?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's remove this screen and add ValidateCodeActionModal to ConfirmDelegatePage and SecuritySettingsPage instead 😄

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, i was thinking that too that makes the most sense. i'll update it :)

@getusha
Copy link
Contributor Author

getusha commented Sep 27, 2024

@hungvu193 I realized this a little bit late but, seems like we may need to keep the page to avoid duplicate code

Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.SETTINGS_DELEGATE_MAGIC_CODE.getRoute(email, role));

This page is accessed directly from SecuritySettingsPage as well. wdyt?

You mentioned this earlier, i didn't catch it :')

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

I think it's a little weird when a screen only contains a modal as a single view, I'm not sure if it's OK. So let's use ValidateCodeActionModal as a replacement 😄

@getusha
Copy link
Contributor Author

getusha commented Sep 27, 2024

I think it's a little weird when a screen only contains a modal as a single view, I'm not sure if it's OK. So let's use ValidateCodeActionModal as a replacement 😄

@hungvu193 what i am saying is, we'll just be duplicating the code in two pages while we can have it in a single page and re-use it.

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

@hungvu193 what i am saying is, we'll just be duplicating the code in two pages while we can have it in a single page and re-use it.

What's your plan? We still keep this screen or create a reusable component based on ValidateCodeModal?
My concern here is that a screen that return modal can lead to weird bugs with gestures. I used to face it before.

@getusha
Copy link
Contributor Author

getusha commented Sep 27, 2024

What's your plan? We still keep this screen or create a reusable component based on ValidateCodeModal?
My concern here is that a screen that return modal can lead to weird bugs with gestures. I used to face it before.

Yeah, you're right. creating a reusable component that'll include all the logic based on ValidateCodeModal sounds ideal. Keeping the screen doesn't seem that bad as well if we test it thoroughly.

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

Cool. Let's do it 🚀

@getusha
Copy link
Contributor Author

getusha commented Sep 29, 2024

@hungvu193 what do you think about this? 92a43b5

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

@hungvu193 what do you think about this? 92a43b5

Looks pretty good to me. Can you address the issue that we found during our last preview so I can start testing review again?

@getusha
Copy link
Contributor Author

getusha commented Sep 30, 2024

Looks pretty good to me. Can you address the issue that we found during our last preview so I can start testing review again?

@hungvu193 sorry, which one? 😄

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

Looks pretty good to me. Can you address the issue that we found during our last preview so I can start testing review again?

@hungvu193 sorry, which one? 😄

https://expensify.slack.com/archives/D07N0F7RE6Q/p1727171810042779
This one, I don't think there's a commit to fix it since our last convo?

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

@getusha
Copy link
Contributor Author

getusha commented Sep 30, 2024

On it! even though i have no idea what Changed files ESLint check is asking me to do :)

Copy link
Contributor

@hungvu193 hungvu193 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Only one nab, I will go ahead and merge it so other PRs can also go ahead

@@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ type ValidateCodeFormProps = {

/** Function to clear error of the form */
clearError: () => void;

sendValidateCode: () => void;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Docs

@mountiny mountiny merged commit ff6d622 into Expensify:main Oct 21, 2024
18 checks passed
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot added the Emergency label Oct 21, 2024
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 21, 2024

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

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

Great job, seeing this one through

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.52-0 🚀

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

@bondydaa
Copy link
Contributor

looks like this broke a flow with copilots #51266

@rlinoz
Copy link
Contributor

rlinoz commented Oct 22, 2024

Also causing an issue when validating a second contact method: #51274

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

This was not an emergency, seems like the checks are flaky and incorrectly flag prs as emergency, the tests were passing

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.0.52-5 🚀

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

@@ -61,10 +74,13 @@ function ValidateCodeActionModal({isVisible, title, description, onClose, valida
validatePendingAction={validatePendingAction}
validateError={validateError}
handleSubmitForm={handleSubmitForm}
sendValidateCode={sendValidateCode}
Copy link
Contributor

@youssef-lr youssef-lr Oct 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there any reason why we made this a prop instead of implementing it in this component?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sendValidateCode is passed to be used only for requesting a new magic code in BaseValidateCodeForm

const resendValidateCode = () => {
sendValidateCode();
inputValidateCodeRef.current?.clear();

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, so why isn't the implementation of sendValidateCode is not in ValidateCodeActionModal here

, why do we need to supply it from parent components given that it's always going to be the same?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically this code is repeated in every component that uses this modal

    const sendValidateCode = () => {
        if (loginData?.validateCodeSent) {
            return;
        }

        User.requestValidateCodeAction();
    };

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are two functions to request a magic code requestContactMethodValidateCode & requestValidateCodeAction

And there may be conditions before calling the function, which means if we want to implement sendValidateCode in the modal we'll still need to supply loginData and contact method with a boolean prop for which function to use.

const primaryLogin = account?.primaryLogin ?? '';
const loginData = loginList?.[primaryLogin];

I thought this would be the most convenient way to make the component flexible.

@@ -74,6 +72,13 @@ function ConfirmDelegatePage({route}: ConfirmDelegatePageProps) {
onPress={() => Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.SETTINGS_DELEGATE_ROLE.getRoute(login, role))}
shouldShowRightIcon
/>

{isValidateCodeActionModalVisible && (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Coming from #51273, Here, when we close the modal from the child component, the isValidateCodeActionModalVisible value on the parent component doesn’t get updated. As a result, when we navigate back and try to open the modal again, the button won’t trigger it because the value remains true on the parent.

More context on this in the proposal: #51273 (comment)

@@ -189,7 +188,7 @@ function BaseValidateCodeForm({
errorText={formError?.validateCode ? translate(formError?.validateCode) : ErrorUtils.getLatestErrorMessage(account ?? {})}
hasError={!isEmptyObject(validateError)}
onFulfill={validateAndSubmitForm}
autoFocus={false}
autoFocus
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Adding autofocus here caused the keyboard not to open on android (#51279), we fixed this in #51453.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you. We already discussed it during PR phase, but then forgot to update it here.

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.

9 participants