fix: logic for waypoint validation #26591

allroundexperts · 2023-09-02T23:39:15Z

Details

This PR fixes the logic to check the start and end way points of a distance request.

Fixed Issues

$ #26583
PROPOSAL: #26583 (comment)

Tests

Click on the + icon in the LHN.
Select "Request money" and then choose "Distance".
Select the starting and finishing points
Click on "Add stop". Don't save an address for this new waypoint/stop.
Proceed by clicking the "Next" button.

Verify that the route is shown correctly.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Click on the + icon in the LHN.
Select "Request money" and then choose "Distance".
Select the starting and finishing points
Click on "Add stop". Don't save an address for this new waypoint/stop.
Proceed by clicking the "Next" button.

Verify that the route is shown correctly.

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 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 correct English and 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
- 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 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 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 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

Screen.Recording.2023-09-03.at.4.23.29.AM.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-09-03.at.4.31.22.AM.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-09-03.at.4.32.47.AM.mov

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-09-03.at.4.26.04.AM.mov

iOS

Screen.Recording.2023-09-03.at.4.33.27.AM.mov

Android

Screen.Recording.2023-09-03.at.4.34.30.AM.mov

melvin-bot · 2023-09-02T23:39:20Z

@ntdiary 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]

situchan · 2023-09-03T04:41:36Z

reviewing this one based on @hayata-suenaga's request

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

src/libs/actions/IOU.js

ntdiary · 2023-09-03T09:54:41Z

If there are Start waypoint and Finish waypoint, and middle Stop waypoints are empty, the creating distance request will get error. I think this issue should also be fixed. Also, @situchan, I think you can be the primary C+ to get the bonus (I have some other things to do later, and if needed, I may have time to assist as well). 🙂

allroundexperts · 2023-09-03T10:03:31Z

@ntdiary What error do you get?

situchan · 2023-09-03T10:04:09Z

If there are Start waypoint and Finish waypoint, and middle Stop waypoints are empty, the creating distance request will get error

This is the main fix from this PR.
@ntdiary Did you test on this branch?

situchan · 2023-09-03T10:23:05Z

@allroundexperts after validation filter, keys should be rearranged.

waypoint1 instead of waypoint3

ntdiary · 2023-09-03T10:26:14Z

error.mp4

Did you not try clicking Request? 😂

situchan · 2023-09-03T10:29:09Z

error.mp4

Should be related to #26591 (comment)

ntdiary · 2023-09-03T10:33:00Z

Should be related to #26591 (comment)

Yeah, this is the error I mentioned, and it only needs to be rearranged when creating the request (not when selecting locations), otherwise it will cause the second stop waypoint and finish waypoint to become the same location.

duplicate.mp4

allroundexperts · 2023-09-03T11:20:40Z

The issue mentioned above has been fixed @situchan!

situchan · 2023-09-03T11:25:10Z

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

+    const validWaypoints = _.reduce(
+        waypointValues,
+        (acc, currentWaypoint, index) => {
+            const previousWaypoint = waypointValues[index - 1];
+            // Check if the waypoint has a valid address
+            if (!currentWaypoint || !currentWaypoint.address || typeof currentWaypoint.address !== 'string' || currentWaypoint.address.trim() === '') {
+                return acc;
+            }
+
+            // Check for adjacent waypoints with the same address
+            if (previousWaypoint && currentWaypoint.address === previousWaypoint.address) {
+                return acc;
+            }
+
+            const lastIndex = Math.max(..._.map(_.keys(acc), (key) => parseInt(key.replace('waypoint', ''), 10)));
+            return {...acc, [`waypoint${reArrangeIndexes && lastIndex > -1 ? lastIndex + 1 : index}`]: currentWaypoint};
+        },
+        {},
+    );


I think we can refactor this code to be more readable.
How about changing to array first using _.filter and then back to object?
This won't require calculating key names in complex way.

Doing so will not preserve the keys. We want to not preserve the keys only when creating the distance request.

Doing so will not preserve the keys. We want to not preserve the keys only when creating the distance request.

I also commented here. But did you find any issue without preserving keys on Request money page before creating request?

Doesn't work. Ref:

Screen.Recording.2023-09-03.at.4.39.48.PM.mov

What's the root cause? I thought waypoints is used to display routes, not validatedWaypoints

No. The route is calculated via the validatedWaypoints. The response from the getRoute request gets stored into onyx. Since the response has the same keys as the waypoints supplied in the request body, therefore, the above error occurs.

App/src/components/DistanceRequest.js

Line 174 in 388ddc8

{_.map(waypoints, (waypoint, key) => {

Yes. This waypoints come from the transaction object here which gets updated when a call to the API is made for getting the route here with validated waypoints.

FYI, I have simplified the logic for calculating the new indexes!

ok, confirmed. I suspected GetRoute api would also require rearranged keys but no need

situchan · 2023-09-03T11:27:37Z

src/libs/actions/IOU.js

@@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ function createDistanceRequest(report, participant, comment, created, transactio
            createdChatReportActionID,
            createdIOUReportActionID,
            reportPreviewReportActionID: reportPreviewAction.reportActionID,
-            waypoints: JSON.stringify(transaction.comment.waypoints),
+            waypoints: JSON.stringify(TransactionUtils.getValidWaypoints(transaction.comment.waypoints, true)),


I don't think 2nd param is needed.
This will also be used in GetRoute api. And doesn't affect displaying routes.

Replied here

I think we need this logic to reorganize indices to be consecutive (i.e. we need to pass true)

yes, I meant to reorganize always without needing to pass 2nd param but later I realized it should be conditional

situchan · 2023-09-03T12:39:48Z

We should not allow Next button when there's only one unique route.

This is the case when have 2 routes and both are same address:

allroundexperts · 2023-09-03T14:40:04Z

We should not allow Next button when there's only one unique route.

This is the case when have 2 routes and both are same address:

Handled!

situchan · 2023-09-03T15:05:08Z

Branch conflicts now

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

situchan

src/components/DistanceRequest.js

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

allroundexperts · 2023-09-03T19:45:30Z

@situchan I did the NAB changes and it would be great if you could do a final sanity check!

situchan · 2023-09-03T21:15:05Z

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js

+ * @param {Object} waypoint
+ * @returns {Boolean} Returns true if the address is valid
+ */
+function waypointHasValidAddress(waypoint) {


hasWaypointValidAddress is better name

situchan · 2023-09-04T03:12:19Z

@situchan I did the NAB changes and it would be great if you could do a final sanity check!

Looks good

OSBotify · 2023-09-04T03:35:54Z

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

hayata-suenaga · 2023-09-04T06:32:00Z

@situchan @allroundexperts

I realized a problem with this PR (there is no regression yet from this one, and I doubt that there will be)

the reducer function for waypoints to filter out invalid waypoints is assuming that waypointValues are sorted when we get values from the waypoints object here.

But the ordering of values are not guaranteed. So we have to sort the waypointValues based on the index that is included in the key waypoint${index}.

If you agree, can you make a follow up PR @allroundexperts 🙇 ?

situchan · 2023-09-04T06:35:00Z

@hayata-suenaga you mean initial waypoints object can be like {waypoint3: xx, waypoint1: xx, waypoint2: xx}?

situchan · 2023-09-04T06:37:35Z

assuming that waypointValues are sorted

I haven't found any case where this doesn't happen. Checking now

situchan · 2023-09-04T06:40:31Z

I think addStop, removeWaypoint functions guarantee that indexes are always sorted

ntdiary · 2023-09-04T07:59:06Z

But the ordering of values are not guaranteed. So we have to sort the waypointValues based on the index that is included in the key waypoint${index}.

That's an interesting thing. In my impression, JS does not promise the order of properties in an object. I noticed this before, but after testing there did not seem to be any abnormal cases, so I did not report it. Also, I was curious before why Object was used to store waypoints rather than Array (+ a temp id) (did not have time to investigate), and from the current code we can see that we need to pay close attention to reordering frequently, which increases potential risks and complexity. 😂

OSBotify · 2023-09-04T16:50:04Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/hayata-suenaga in version: 1.3.63-0 🚀

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

allroundexperts · 2023-09-04T18:46:49Z

PR for sorting: #26705

hayata-suenaga · 2023-09-04T19:35:14Z

@ntdiary

Also, I was curious before why Object was used to store waypoints rather than Array (+ a temp id) (did not have time to investigate), and from the current code we can see that we need to pay close attention to reordering frequently, which increases potential risks and complexity.

This is a very good point that I also noticed. We should do a cleanup eventually. I first need to ask the engineer who came up with this design to see if there was a particular reason we went this way though

OSBotify · 2023-09-05T18:42:39Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.63-2 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-09-05T19:13:05Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/hayata-suenaga in version: 1.3.64-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-09-06T18:55:40Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.64-2 🚀

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

fix: logic for waypoint validation

109726e

allroundexperts requested a review from a team as a code owner September 2, 2023 23:39

melvin-bot bot requested review from ntdiary and removed request for a team September 2, 2023 23:39

allroundexperts mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-09-20] [HOLD for payment 2023-09-12] [$1000] Fix the logic to check Start and Finish waypoints #26583

Closed

6 tasks

fix: lint issues

f7d7796

situchan suggested changes Sep 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/actions/IOU.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: add proper typings for waypoint validation

9b1e693

allroundexperts requested a review from situchan September 3, 2023 06:33

allroundexperts added 2 commits September 3, 2023 16:18

fix: re-arrange indexes

4bc3a23

lint errors

2d34d98

situchan reviewed Sep 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

fix: simplify the logic for waypoint validation

d6de602

fix: disable button when valid waypoints are less than 2

ac08f33

ntdiary reviewed Sep 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

merge with main

4304851

situchan approved these changes Sep 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/components/DistanceRequest.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/components/DistanceRequest.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

melvin-bot bot requested a review from hayata-suenaga September 3, 2023 17:24

mountiny assigned allroundexperts Sep 3, 2023

Pujan92 mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2023

[$500] BUG: [distance] missing front end waypoint validation #26545

Closed

6 tasks

hayata-suenaga reviewed Sep 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js Show resolved Hide resolved

hayata-suenaga reviewed Sep 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

hayata-suenaga reviewed Sep 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/libs/TransactionUtils.js Show resolved Hide resolved

tiny refactors for waypoint logic

a8dda33

situchan reviewed Sep 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

hayata-suenaga approved these changes Sep 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

hayata-suenaga merged commit 44721d2 into Expensify:main Sep 4, 2023

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-09-04 #26686

Closed

35 tasks

This was referenced Sep 4, 2023

[$500] [Distance] - Map does not zoom out to show the entire route when the map window is reduced #26724

Closed

[$500] [distance] Distance - Stop waypoint is filled with Finish address #26725

Closed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-09-05 #26820

Closed

48 tasks

tobyjsullivan mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2023

[$500] Distance-In receipt, finish address shown is different from the address entered #31613

Closed

6 tasks

fix: logic for waypoint validation #26591

fix: logic for waypoint validation #26591

Conversation

allroundexperts commented Sep 2, 2023

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 2, 2023

situchan commented Sep 3, 2023

ntdiary commented Sep 3, 2023

allroundexperts commented Sep 3, 2023

situchan commented Sep 3, 2023 • edited Loading

situchan commented Sep 3, 2023

ntdiary commented Sep 3, 2023 • edited Loading

situchan commented Sep 3, 2023

ntdiary commented Sep 3, 2023 • edited Loading

allroundexperts commented Sep 3, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

allroundexperts Sep 3, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

situchan commented Sep 3, 2023

allroundexperts commented Sep 3, 2023

situchan commented Sep 3, 2023

situchan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

allroundexperts commented Sep 3, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 4, 2023

hayata-suenaga commented Sep 4, 2023

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023

situchan commented Sep 4, 2023

ntdiary commented Sep 4, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 4, 2023

allroundexperts commented Sep 4, 2023

hayata-suenaga commented Sep 4, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 5, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 5, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 6, 2023

situchan commented Sep 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

ntdiary commented Sep 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

ntdiary commented Sep 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts Sep 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading