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

Initialise pusher before rendering children #54188

Conversation

jnowakow
Copy link
Contributor

@jnowakow jnowakow commented Dec 16, 2024

Explanation of Change

This change starts Pusher initialisation before any children of AuthScreens is rendered allowing them to call safely subscribe. When initialisation was triggered in useEffect it was run after children was rendered leading to error. Now initialisation is triggered during first render and error doesn't happen.

Fixed Issues

$ #54142
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  1. Log in to any account
  2. Type Onyx.merge('user', {isGuide: true});
  3. Refresh the page
  4. Verify the app does not crash
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

  1. Log in to account which is guide
  2. Refresh the page
  3. Verify the app does not crash
  • 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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • 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

N/A

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A

iOS: Native

N/A

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A

MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop

N/A

@jnowakow jnowakow requested a review from a team as a code owner December 16, 2024 11:22
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from s77rt and removed request for a team December 16, 2024 11:22
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 16, 2024

@s77rt 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]

@jnowakow
Copy link
Contributor Author

The test that is failing in CI passes locally
image

Copy link
Contributor

@aldo-expensify aldo-expensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks a bit like a workaround to me. Can you show where this was crashing due to the initialization being too late? why does this only happen for guides? Would be nice to have more details about the root cause

@@ -260,6 +260,16 @@ function AuthScreens({session, lastOpenedPublicRoomID, initialLastUpdateIDApplie
};
}, [theme]);

const pusherInitialized = useRef(false);

// eslint-disable-next-line react-compiler/react-compiler
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are we disabling eslint here?

@jnowakow
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aldo-expensify the primary issue with Pusher was that it was initialized asynchronously outside of the React context. Previously, the app would crash when the ReportScreen was accessed directly via a deep link, as discussed here. This problem arose due to a regression introduced in this PR , where I removed an additional state used for conditionally rendering the ActiveGuidesEventListener, forgetting that useEffect executes after render.

To resolve this, the initialization of Pusher now occurs before the rendering of any child components within AuthScreens, thereby mitigating the issue. In previous PR I altered the logic of subscribing to Pusher. This update involves maintaining a reference to a Promise that initializes Pusher, where new subscriptions chain onto this promise. As a result, the additional state in AuthScreens is no longer necessary, which reduces re-renders and simplifies the handling of Pusher initialization across the app. This approach ensures that the state of Pusher's initialization does not need to be tracked separately in various components.

@aldo-expensify
Copy link
Contributor

@jnowakow thank you very much for all the details. Just a NAB: Usually code that runs during rendering should be just that: rendering code. What about adding a wrapper component like:

const PusherInitializer = (props) => {
  const [initialized, setInitialized] = useState(false);
  useEffect(() => {
     initializePusher();
     setInitialized(true);
  }, []);

  return initialized ? props.children : <Some spinner>;
}

Not sure if it introduced other problems though.

@jnowakow
Copy link
Contributor Author

jnowakow commented Dec 16, 2024

Yeah but in this case it would cause screen to blink as we would wait with rendering whole app before Pusher initialises. So it's not a case here. But I think I have a better solution. I'll update the PR shortly

@jnowakow
Copy link
Contributor Author

jnowakow commented Dec 16, 2024

@aldo-expensify now it works as it should. All subscription logic is handled by Pusher and React components don't care if its initialisation state. Earlier I chained on the Promise that was created by init function. Now I chain on the Promise that is defined from the beginning and resolved by init function so app will never crash.

@@ -90,8 +93,9 @@ function callSocketEventCallbacks(eventName: SocketEventName, data?: EventCallba
* @returns resolves when Pusher has connected
*/
function init(args: Args, params?: unknown): Promise<void> {
initPromise = new Promise((resolve) => {
return new Promise((resolve) => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does this strategy of preserving the original promise work fine if the user does this:

  • Log in with Account A
  • Log out
  • Log in with Account B

?

I imagine that before a new promise would be created, now we reuse the same. Could that cause a bug?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch! It could lead to this sequence and crash:

  1. User A logs in
  2. initPromise is resolved
  3. User A logs out
  4. socket is reassigned to null
  5. User B logs in
  6. initPromise is resolved but socket is not created yet
  7. App crashes here
    throw new Error(`[Pusher] instance not found. Pusher.subscribe()
    most likely has been called before Pusher.init()`);

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But we can avoid this by creating new Promise in disconnect function like that:

/**
 * Disconnect from Pusher
 */
function disconnect() {
    if (!socket) {
        Log.info('[Pusher] Attempting to disconnect from Pusher before initialisation has occurred, ignoring.');
        return;
    }

    socket.disconnect();
    socket = null;
    pusherSocketID = '';
    initPromise = new Promise((resolve) => {
        resolveInitPromise = resolve;
    });
}

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch! That would cause a bug as now if you call pusher.subscribe() it will fail with [Pusher] instance not found, socket is cleared on logout and not created again since the promise is already resolved.

Actually the bug already exists on main too as we can always call subscribe before init

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Github comments are not loading up in time 😅

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@s77rt yeah, github lags sometimes but it seems that we all agree to the solution :D

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor

s77rt commented Dec 17, 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.ts 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.
  • For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
  • 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
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor

s77rt commented Dec 17, 2024

@jnowakow Can you please change the tests section to the below:

Tests

  1. Log in to any account
  2. Type Onyx.merge('user', {isGuide: true});
  3. Refresh the page
  4. Verify the app does not crash

Offline tests
n/a

QA Steps

  1. Log in to account which is guide
  2. Refresh the page
  3. Verify the app does not crash

@jnowakow
Copy link
Contributor Author

@s77rt done 🫡

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from aldo-expensify December 17, 2024 11:15
@aldo-expensify aldo-expensify merged commit f69d05b into Expensify:main Dec 17, 2024
18 checks passed
@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.

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for handling!

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/aldo-expensify in version: 9.0.77-0 🚀

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.0.77-6 🚀

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

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.

5 participants