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

Update reimbursement account page to function component #29166

Merged
merged 35 commits into from
Nov 9, 2023

Conversation

keisyrzk
Copy link
Contributor

@keisyrzk keisyrzk commented Oct 10, 2023

Details

Updated the component so it is now built with a function.

Fixed Issues

$ #16245

Tests

  1. Click on avatar on the main view
  2. Go to Workspaces
  3. Choose a workspace
  4. Go to Reimbursements
  5. Under "Unlock next-day reimbursements" section click Connect Bank Account
  6. On the next view click Connect Manually and when loaded go back
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

NA

QA Steps

Same steps as the Tests section

  • [:white_check_mark:] 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
  • 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

Android: Native
android.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
android_chrome.mp4
iOS: Native
ios.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios_safari.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
macos_chrome.mp4
macos_safari.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
macos_desktop.mp4

Copy link
Contributor

@rezkiy37 rezkiy37 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, please run lint script to make sure that everything is correct, because I see that some deps. arrays don't have all dependencies and no lint ignores.

@marcaaron marcaaron self-requested a review October 13, 2023 20:33
@keisyrzk keisyrzk force-pushed the update_ReimbursementAccountPage branch from fa28b86 to ffe65cc Compare October 19, 2023 09:47
@keisyrzk keisyrzk requested a review from koko57 October 19, 2023 09:55
@keisyrzk keisyrzk marked this pull request as ready for review October 19, 2023 11:34
@keisyrzk keisyrzk requested a review from a team as a code owner October 19, 2023 11:34
@keisyrzk
Copy link
Contributor Author

keisyrzk commented Nov 7, 2023

@ntdiary @marcaaron just want to let you know the changes have been pushed yesterday

@ntdiary
Copy link
Contributor

ntdiary commented Nov 8, 2023

@ntdiary @marcaaron just want to let you know the changes have been pushed yesterday

@keisyrzk, thank you, I have tested, looks like it's working well, except there's a small difference when opening from bill option, but personally I don't feel it's a blocking problem, it would be better to complete the migration first, then optimize the business logic separately.

test.mp4

@marcaaron
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry for the delay here - code LGTM. We must run prettier and then it is ready for :shipit:

@keisyrzk
Copy link
Contributor Author

keisyrzk commented Nov 8, 2023

@marcaaron I ran prettier and pushed the update.

Copy link
Contributor

@marcaaron marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, but the reassure performance test is failing. I am not sure how to resolve that and don't quite understand why it fails.

@ntdiary
Copy link
Contributor

ntdiary commented Nov 9, 2023

LGTM, but the reassure performance test is failing. I am not sure how to resolve that and don't quite understand why it fails.

@marcaaron, the failed jest test on the main branch are causing the reassure job to fail, So there's probably not much we can do on this branch. : )

  1. job error code:
    image

  2. reassure source code:
    image

  3. failed jest test:
    image

I see other branches have successful runs, maybe we could also try rerunning the reassure job, or merging this branch first, and then improving the stability of the jest tests in a separate issue.

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

mountiny commented Nov 9, 2023

That failure is just a timeout in those tests which we have fixed in a recent PR, I am going to merge this over the failing tests as its flakey

@mountiny mountiny merged commit 2addd69 into Expensify:main Nov 9, 2023
12 of 13 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Nov 9, 2023

✋ 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/mountiny in version: 1.3.98-0 🚀

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

import ReimbursementAccountLoadingIndicator from '@components/ReimbursementAccountLoadingIndicator';
import ScreenWrapper from '@components/ScreenWrapper';
import Text from '@components/Text';
import withLocalize, {withLocalizePropTypes} from '@components/withLocalize';
import Text from '@components/TextInput';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This import is tied to a crash on staging here. Fix is here

Should have been

import Text from '@components/Text';

@johnmlee101
Copy link
Contributor

This caused a regression IRT the resuming bank account flows here: #31212

@johnmlee101
Copy link
Contributor

This is staged to be reverted and CP'd

marcaaron added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 10, 2023
OSBotify pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 10, 2023
[CP Staging] Revert #31201 and #29166

(cherry picked from commit ab4a148)
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.3.98-5 🚀

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

@ntdiary
Copy link
Contributor

ntdiary commented Nov 15, 2023

This caused a regression IRT the resuming bank account flows here: #31212

Ah, I didn't realize it was a regression. I initially thought it wasn't a blocking problem, so I left only a comment there. 😅

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.4.0-0 🚀

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