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

Require validateCode when requesting replacement cards #51147

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Nov 7, 2024

Conversation

youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor

@youssef-lr youssef-lr commented Oct 21, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/434460
$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/434468

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

First checkout this Auth PR, and then hardcode these lines:

  1. https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/blob/4fccc5d6258fc9d7879d5cea6c0ced5663cd3334/lib/CardAPI.php#L652 => $response = Auth::requestReplacementExpensifyCard($authToken, $cardID, $reason, validateCode: $validateCode);

  2. https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/blob/4fccc5d6258fc9d7879d5cea6c0ced5663cd3334/lib/CardAPI.php#L405 => Auth::requestReplacementExpensifyCard($authToken, $existingVirtualCardID, Card::CARD_REPLACEMENT_REASON_STOLEN, validateCode: $validateCode, skipVirtualCardCreation: true);

  3. Have an account with a physical and virtual card.

  4. Report virtual card for fraud, make sure you're asked to enter a validateCode.

  5. Enter a wrong validate code and make sure the request doesn't go through.

  6. Enter the correct magic code and make sure you're redirected to the new card page.

  7. Repeat the same steps by requesting a replacement physical card.

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
  1. Have an account with a physical and virtual card.
  2. Report virtual card for fraud, make sure you're asked to enter a validateCode.
  3. Enter a wrong validate code and make sure the request doesn't go through.
  4. Enter the correct magic code and make sure you're redirected to the new card page.
  5. Repeat the same steps by requesting a replacement physical card.

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.
  • 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
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-10-29.at.21.18.47.mov
MacOS: Desktop

@youssef-lr youssef-lr changed the title Youssef validate code replacement cards Require validateCode when requesting replacement cards Oct 21, 2024
@youssef-lr youssef-lr self-assigned this Oct 21, 2024
@youssef-lr youssef-lr marked this pull request as ready for review October 26, 2024 16:14
@youssef-lr youssef-lr requested a review from a team as a code owner October 26, 2024 16:14
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from jjcoffee and removed request for a team October 26, 2024 16:14
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 26, 2024

@jjcoffee 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]

@youssef-lr youssef-lr removed the request for review from jjcoffee October 26, 2024 16:16
@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jjcoffee this needs an internal review due to some backend changes that aren't live and we can't make them live until this PR is deployed.

@youssef-lr youssef-lr requested a review from a team October 26, 2024 16:16
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from thienlnam and removed request for a team October 26, 2024 16:17
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 26, 2024

@thienlnam 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]

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yup I found it weird too. I haven't touched this part in my changes.

Copy link
Contributor

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖 iOS 🍎
❌ FAILED ❌ https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/51147/index.html
The QR code can't be generated, because the android build failed iOS
Desktop 💻 Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/51147/NewExpensify.dmg https://51147.pr-testing.expensify.com
Desktop Web

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed. This was using OfflineWithFeedback which by default shows the error below, but it has an option to display the error above.

Screen.Recording.2024-10-29.at.21.49.36.mov

Copy link
Contributor

@thienlnam thienlnam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code largely looks good, just a comment about the side effect pattern. One more thing is will this work even without the auth changes?

Comment on lines 118 to 128
requestValidateCodeAction();
};

const handleValidateCodeEntered = (validateCode: string) => {
CardActions.requestReplacementExpensifyCard(physicalCard.cardID, reason?.key as ReplacementReason, validateCode).then((newCardID) => {
if (!newCardID) {
return;
}
setIsValidateCodeActionModalVisible(false);
Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.SETTINGS_WALLET_DOMAINCARD.getRoute(newCardID));
});
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It doesn't look like we did this navigation before, is there a reason we are adding it now?

Comment on lines 132 to 142
// eslint-disable-next-line rulesdir/no-api-side-effects-method
API.makeRequestWithSideEffects(SIDE_EFFECT_REQUEST_COMMANDS.REQUEST_REPLACEMENT_EXPENSIFY_CARD, parameters, {optimisticData, successData, failureData})
.then((response): string | undefined => {
if (response?.jsonCode !== CONST.JSON_CODE.SUCCESS) {
return;
}
resolve((response as ExpensifyCardID).newCardID.toString());
})
.catch(() => reject());
});
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Returning promises from action methods is a discouraged pattern - it looks like we can do this without the side effects.

We just want the new cardID here, so we could probably just have it update an onyx key and only re-direct if we have that key present and are done loading. Alternatively, it seems like we didn't have a redirect before so maybe we don't need to have it still

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@thienlnam without the side effects we used to redirect to the old card page and we display a "$0" limit which looks like a bug to the user

Screen_Recording_2024-10-23_at_22.04.03-2024-10-30.17_36_55.334.mov

We also use side effects for reveal virtual card details here

function revealVirtualCardDetails(cardID: number, validateCode: string): Promise<ExpensifyCardDetails> {
. We also already display a loading spinner when requesting a new card.

Copy link
Contributor

@thienlnam thienlnam Oct 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We use side effects there because we can't store those details in onyx since they're sensitive - but for this which is just a cardID is fine to store in onyx

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm let me see how I can make this work without side effects and also prevent the bug above.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 lmk if you need some ideas - usually the way we get around this is by adding a loading indicator on a loading key on the onyx key for the page

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Something like this, wdyt?

Screenshot 2024-11-01 at 18 40 40

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@thienlnam IMO I think we can keep the side effect call here, you can see in the comment that our use case here is allowed, we are both calling Marqeta and redirecting based on the response

Screenshot 2024-11-01 at 19 10 59

Also given that we display a spinner and make the user wait, I don't see how is using the optimistic pattern is helpful?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yup something along those lines would work - you'd need to have the API command send an onyx update for the newCardID if you wanted to redirect to the new card.

Though thinking about this more though, if you only added the redirect so that the card doesn't show with a $0 limit we could also just not do the redirect because then it forces this flow to happen online.

In App, in the optimistic data you could set a new key called isReplacing or something on the cardID and so when you open that cardID you would see some note that it's been replaced and then when the API completes it would remove the card and have the new card in the list. That's probably easier and then allows the user to take other actions offline with the command queued - what do you think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I hear you. However I think that this stuff is out of scope, so it's best if I kept this PR focused on validateCode using the same offline pattern we have now, which means not fixing the $0 bug, I think we can open an issue to fix separately. Sounds good?

Copy link
Contributor

@thienlnam thienlnam Nov 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah that works for me - the main concern for me here is to remove the side effect so if we can do that here and have an external contributor handle the UI update seperately

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Good shout Danny, I agree seeing the error below the footer button felt weird - glad we have the option to easily add it above!

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated @thienlnam

@thienlnam
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like there are some lint failures

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

youssef-lr commented Nov 6, 2024

Ah, I need to remove usage of withOnyx. Will do tomorrow. Also, apologies for late update, I was OOO sick.

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed @thienlnam

Copy link
Contributor

@thienlnam thienlnam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great, thanks!

@thienlnam
Copy link
Contributor

thienlnam commented Nov 7, 2024

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: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb 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 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 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 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(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.
  • I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer 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
MacOS: Desktop

@thienlnam thienlnam merged commit 7a605ec into main Nov 7, 2024
16 of 17 checks passed
@thienlnam thienlnam deleted the youssef_validateCode_replacement_cards branch November 7, 2024 18:59
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Nov 7, 2024

✋ 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/thienlnam in version: 9.0.60-0 🚀

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

@kavimuru
Copy link

@youssef-lr @francoisl we don't have physical card and we can verify with virtual card only.

@francoisl
Copy link
Contributor

@youssef-lr is there a way to test with physical cards without actually requesting a replacement on each platform?

@youssef-lr
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not sure there is, cc @NikkiWines. I think we can check this off for now, nothing has changed once a validateCode is valid, things should work the same as before

@NikkiWines
Copy link
Contributor

🤔 I don't think we have a flow for that. Except maybe you could request a replacement then cancel the request internally which might be tricky timing wise and I'm not to sure exactly how you'd do that.

It's a little dicey to not test the success flow at all on staging or prod, but I'm not sure how to bypass that here

@NikkiWines
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe we could follow the same / similar steps from when this command was initially added here?

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.0.60-3 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄 skipped 🚫
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄 skipped 🚫

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants