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

Add an action method for creating a distance request #24385

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Aug 17, 2023

Conversation

tgolen
Copy link
Contributor

@tgolen tgolen commented Aug 10, 2023

Details

This PR adds a new method to the IOU action file for creating a distance request. Since the majority of the logic was shared with requestMoney(), much of the code needed to be DRYed and moved to another method.

Fixed Issues

$ #22711

Tests

Note: This logic is not connected to anything at the moment so the only test to do is to ensure that there are no regressions when requesting money.

  1. Click the + button
  2. Select "Request Money"
  3. Go through the flow and verify that it works without any regressions
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

None

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 / Chrome
    • iOS / native
    • iOS / 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 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
    • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
    • 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(themeColors.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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

image

Mobile Web - Chrome

image

Mobile Web - Safari

image

Desktop

image

iOS

image

Android

image

@tgolen tgolen self-assigned this Aug 10, 2023
@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgolen commented Aug 10, 2023

@neil-marcellini Would you mind pulling this branch and seeing if there are any regressions when requesting money? I tried this over and over again in my environment and I ran into so many server errors that I couldn't get this tested. I'm thinking I need to rebuild my VM completely to try and get it tested.

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgolen commented Aug 10, 2023

Nevermind, it looks like rebuilding my VM and starting with a fresh database works 👍

@tgolen tgolen marked this pull request as ready for review August 11, 2023 14:40
@tgolen tgolen requested a review from a team as a code owner August 11, 2023 14:40
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team August 11, 2023 14:40
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 11, 2023

@robertKozik @ One of you needs to 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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from robertKozik August 11, 2023 14:40
@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgolen commented Aug 11, 2023

This is ready for review, but I am having a difficult time getting anything to run on Android, so that is where my testing is being held-up. @robertKozik maybe you are able to have better luck testing this on Android than me!

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgolen commented Aug 11, 2023

I finally got Android running and finished testing this.

Copy link
Contributor

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking good and tests well. I realized we need to make one modification regarding the optimistic transaction.

@@ -364,7 +377,7 @@ function requestMoney(report, amount, currency, payeeEmail, payeeAccountID, part
receiptObject.source = receipt.source;
receiptObject.state = CONST.IOU.RECEIPT_STATE.SCANREADY;
}
const optimisticTransaction = TransactionUtils.buildOptimisticTransaction(amount, currency, iouReport.reportID, comment, '', '', undefined, receiptObject);
const transaction = TransactionUtils.buildOptimisticTransaction(amount, currency, iouReport.reportID, comment, '', '', undefined, receiptObject);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For distance requests we create the transaction optimistically as soon as the flow starts, so we need to get that transaction and merge it with the other optimistic transaction data built here.

IOU.createEmptyTransaction();

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK, it looks like createEmptyTransaction() is a method that generates a random transactionID (I think maybe it is a poorly named method). In order to use that transactionID, I have modified createDistanceRequest() to accept an existing transaction ID. This ID is then used when creating the optimistic transaction in this code instead of generating a new random ID.

I think that should be all that is needed for when someone hooks up to the createDistanceRequest() method, but please double-check my assumptions.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can build the optimistic transaction with the same ID, but then we still need to merge it with the transaction that already exists in Onyx. The existing transaction will have waypoints set on it, and maybe some other data that I don't think we want to lose.

Copy link
Contributor

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking better, but as I mentioned in an earlier thread I think we should merge the optimistic transaction with the one that is currently stored in Onyx.

@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ function buildOnyxDataForMoneyRequest(
const optimisticData = [
{
// Use SET for new reports because it doesn't exist yet, is faster and we need the data to be available when we navigate to the chat page
onyxMethod: isNewChatReport ? Onyx.METHOD.SET : Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
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 removing this condition?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These are being changed because:

  1. Set and merge shouldn't be mixed. It will lead to undefined behavior of the order in which subscribers are updated (ie. you end up seeing a little flash of incorrect data as amounts go from $0 to whatever was set in the request).
  2. Using set just because "it's faster" is not a reason to use set

I checked with @luacmartins who originally made the change and we agreed it was OK to use merge for everything for now.

Copy link
Contributor

@allroundexperts allroundexperts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tests well!

@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 17, 2023

@aldo-expensify 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]

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgolen commented Aug 17, 2023

In offline mode, requesting money from a new user results in the following console error:

I was not able to reproduce this one.

2023-08-17_09-06-54.mp4

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgolen commented Aug 17, 2023

Oh wait, you said from "a new user". I was able to reproduce it now after I caught that. Looking into it.

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

Oh wait, you said from "a new user". I was able to reproduce it now after I caught that. Looking into it.

It's not related to this PR but a regression from a another PR merged yesterday.

@tgolen
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgolen commented Aug 17, 2023

OK, I've reverted a lot of the set/merge changes because that was too much of a rabbit hole for now. I've gone ahead and added code which manually merges the existingTransaction (if there is one) with the optimisticTransaction to ensure the final transaction object has all the correct data. The two tests I did to ensure this was working are:

  1. Go offline
  2. Create a money request
  3. Verify there is no flash of "not found" page or the "skeleton UI" loading page
  4. Go online
  5. Create a money request
  6. Verify there is no flash of "not found" page or the "skeleton UI" loading page

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

I can re-review in an hour or two if that is fine.

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

allroundexperts commented Aug 17, 2023

Discovered a new console error not related to this PR while testing this. I'm posting it here because the checklist states so.

Screenshot 2023-08-18 at 12 17 01 AM

Copy link
Contributor

@allroundexperts allroundexperts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking good. Tested again both in offline and online mode. Did not see anything broken!

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from francoisl August 17, 2023 19:36
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 17, 2023

@francoisl 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]

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini merged commit b02310b into main Aug 17, 2023
12 checks passed
@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini deleted the tgolen-createdistancerequest branch August 17, 2023 21:58
@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.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/neil-marcellini in version: 1.3.56-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.3.56-24 🚀

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

Comment on lines +496 to +500
0,
'USD',
payeeAccountID,
payeeEmail,
null,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This caused #26518. We shouldn't have passed in static values like 0 in here if optimistic creation of these requests was supported.

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.

4 participants