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

feat: add policyReportFields to the policy object directly #36553

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Mar 20, 2024

Conversation

allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

@allroundexperts allroundexperts commented Feb 14, 2024

Details

This PR adds the policy report fields to the policy object itself instead of a separate policyFields_id object.

Fixed Issues

$ #36170
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  1. On a Paid workspace, in Old dot, set report fields of different types.
  2. Open ND and create an expense report on the above workspace.
  3. Open the expense report and make sure that canUseReportFields beta is enabled.
  4. Verify that all the custom fields show up.
  5. Click on each of the field.
  6. Enter a value and save it.
  7. Make sure that the field gets saved successfully.
  8. For dropdown fields, verify that selecting an already selected dropdown option again deselects it.
  9. For text fields, verify that removing the text from the input removes the field.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above. Verify that everything works in offline mode.

QA Steps

  1. On a Paid workspace, in Old dot, set report fields of different types.
  2. Open ND and create an expense report on the above workspace.
  3. Open the expense report and make sure that canUseReportFields beta is enabled.
  4. Verify that all the custom fields show up.
  5. Click on each of the field.
  6. Enter a value and save it.
  7. Make sure that the field gets saved successfully.
  8. For dropdown fields, verify that selecting an already selected dropdown option again deselects it.
  9. For text fields, verify that removing the text from the input removes the field.
  • 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 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 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 form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-03-20.at.5.50.33.PM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-03-20.at.5.49.51.PM.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-03-20.at.5.48.23.PM.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-03-20.at.5.46.56.PM.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-03-20.at.5.42.37.PM.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-03-20.at.5.44.59.PM.mov

@allroundexperts allroundexperts marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2024 13:13
@allroundexperts allroundexperts requested a review from a team as a code owner March 20, 2024 13:13
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from aimane-chnaif and removed request for a team March 20, 2024 13:13
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 20, 2024

@aimane-chnaif 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]

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@Expensify/contributor-plus anyone who first comment here please take over.

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

I can!

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

jjcoffee commented Mar 20, 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 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
    • 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-app-2024-03-20_16.14.21.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
android-chrome-2024-03-20_16.25.42.mp4
iOS: Native
ios-app-2024-03-20_15.51.30.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios-safari-2024-03-20_14.44.59.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
desktop-chrome-2024-03-20_15.46.57.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
desktop-app-2024-03-20_16.04.08.mp4

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
allroundexperts and others added 2 commits March 20, 2024 19:20
Co-authored-by: Joel Davies <joeld.dev@gmail.com>
@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

@allroundexperts I guess we don't support disabling dropdown options here yet? If I disable a bunch on OD it doesn't have any effect on ND.

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

For text fields, verify that removing the text from the input removes the field.

@allroundexperts I guess this step is no longer relevant.

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

@allroundexperts I guess we don't support disabling dropdown options here yet? If I disable a bunch on OD it doesn't have any effect on ND.

I don't remember adding it although @thienlnam can confirm.

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

Just a note that the BE still doesn't seem to be sending pusher updates when fields are deleted in OD, so it requires signing out & back in for those changes to show.

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

BUG: Fields that get added via pusher updates open to a not found page. Works after refresh.

chrome-pusher-2024-03-20_16.08.20.mp4

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jjcoffee Can you please share the url you see at top when the not found page is seen?

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks to me like the pusher is sending back the fields without the expensify prefix.

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

Looks to me like the pusher is sending back the fields without the expensify prefix.

@allroundexperts Bingo! /w/6D05DA21B79C2F3A/r/143260955149233/edit/policyField/6D05DA21B79C2F3A/field_id_TEST

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

Ah actually it's the same URL that gets opened after refresh.

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can you check what pusher sends back when you add a field?

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like it only updates the fields on the policy, not the report.

"updates": [
    {
      "data": [
        {
          "key": "policy_6D05DA21B79C2F3A",
          "onyxMethod": "merge",
          "value": {
            "fieldList": {
              "field_id_TESTING_PUSHER": {
                "defaultExternalID": null,
                "defaultValue": null,
                "deletable": false,
                "disabledOptions": [],
                "externalID": null,
                "externalIDs": [],
                "fieldID": "field_id_TESTING_PUSHER",
                "isTax": false,
                "keys": [],
                "name": "Testing Pusher",
                "orderWeight": 4,
                "origin": null,
                "target": "expense",
                "type": "text",
                "value": null,
                "values": []
              }
            }
          }
        }
      ],
      "eventType": "onyxApiUpdate"
    }

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor Author

That's fine. The issue is that pusher is not appending expensify_ with the added field id. cc @thienlnam

@jjcoffee
Copy link
Contributor

Ah yeah I see the policy has duplicate fields with/without the expensify prefix after refreshing.

Copy link
Contributor

@jjcoffee jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! There's just a BE fix required to the pusher updates (see this comment), but that doesn't need to block this PR.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from thienlnam March 20, 2024 15:45
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.

Awesome - thanks for this!

@thienlnam thienlnam merged commit 4891fe3 into Expensify:main Mar 20, 2024
15 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.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.4.56-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 1.4.56-8 🚀

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

fieldName={Str.UCFirst(reportField.name)}
fieldValue={fieldValue}
fieldOptions={reportField.values}
fieldOptions={reportField.values.filter((value) => !(value in reportField.disabledOptions))}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was not the right way to check if a value is in an array in javascript. It caused this deploy blocker: #38898

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ugh... I hate when this happens 😢. I was super sure that this won't happen again.

* Get the key for a report field
*/
function getReportFieldKey(reportFieldId: string) {
return `expensify_${reportFieldId}`;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Adding expensify_ prefix to all fieldID cause a problem with the title fieldID text_title which shouldn't have this prefix, and we dealt with in #40464

fieldName={Str.UCFirst(reportField.name)}
fieldValue={fieldValue}
fieldOptions={reportField.values}
fieldOptions={reportField.values.filter((value) => !(value in reportField.disabledOptions))}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here, we should have used policyField instead of reportField.
Issue: #48827

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.

7 participants