Fix: Red dot persists after removing phone number contact method #18473

Pujan92 · 2023-05-05T13:33:13Z

Details

Added sms domain if the new contact method is phone number to prevent multiple keys creation in the onyx.

Fixed Issues

$ #17889
PROPOSAL: #17889 (comment)

Tests

Go to Settings -> Profile -> Contact Method -> New contact method
Provide an invalid phone number for your region and click on Add button
On the methods list page, Select this added method which also has the Red dot because of the error
Remove the method and Verify there is no Red dot persisting after removing this contact method

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Go to Settings -> Profile -> Contact Method -> New contact method
Provide an invalid phone number for your region and click on Add button
On the methods list page, Select this added method which also has the Red dot because of the error
Remove the method and Verify there is no Red dot persisting after removing this contact method

QA Steps

Go to Settings -> Profile -> Contact Method -> New contact method
Provide an invalid phone number for your region and click on Add button
On the methods list page, Select this added method which also has the Red dot because of the error
Remove the method and Verify there is no Red dot persisting after removing this contact method

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Screen.Recording.2023-05-05.at.6.18.06.PM.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

abcd.webm

Mobile Web - Safari

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.14.-.2023-05-05.at.18.53.40.mp4

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-05-05.at.6.57.08.PM.mov

iOS

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.14.-.2023-05-05.at.18.50.24.mp4

Android

aancd.webm

melvin-bot · 2023-05-05T13:33:19Z

@pecanoro @rushatgabhane 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]

rushatgabhane · 2023-05-08T18:29:48Z

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 / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / 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 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 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(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 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

Web

Screen.Recording.2023-05-09.at.10.02.40.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Screen.Recording.2023-05-09.at.10.04.43.mov

Android

Screen.Recording.2023-05-09.at.10.04.16.mov

rushatgabhane

@pecanoro LGTM!

pecanoro · 2023-05-09T08:58:18Z

Merging! I tested it and it seems to be working well!

OSBotify · 2023-05-09T09:05:43Z

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

s77rt · 2023-05-09T12:56:17Z

HI, just found that this merge may be actually redundant. We have already fixed this on #18536.

pecanoro · 2023-05-09T15:44:54Z

Oh well, both were happening at the same time, we should have caught this up when opening the bug reports. @s77rt I think maybe we just need to pay one bug report as it's exactly the same bug? Or do you think we should pay for both reports? We will be paying for both PRs though since the work is done already.

s77rt · 2023-05-09T16:33:59Z

@pecanoro On another similar scenario (don't have link now) we ended up paying both reporters. But this one seems a little different since the bug reporter is the same. I think the bug bounty should be paid once ($250).

As for this PR, can you please revert it? Not only because it's redundant but it's following a "wrong" pattern: The login that we check here

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/NewContactMethodPage.js

Line 86 in 0eb6495

if (lodashGet(props.loginList, userLogin)) {

should be the same that we end up submitting here

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/NewContactMethodPage.js

Line 91 in 0eb6495

    
           User.addNewContactMethodAndNavigate(OptionsListUtils.addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber(userLogin), password);

But it's not, we check userLogin but submit addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber(userLogin)

We should have called addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber in line 83 so we submit what we check.

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/NewContactMethodPage.js

Line 83 in 0eb6495

    
           const userLogin = parsedPhoneNumber.possible ? `${parsedPhoneNumber.number.e164}${CONST.SMS.DOMAIN}` : login;

pecanoro · 2023-05-09T16:45:40Z

I am not sure if I am following properly. Are you saying we should move OptionsListUtils.addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber to line 83?

s77rt · 2023-05-09T17:05:46Z

@pecanoro If the other PR didn't exist, yes we should have moved that to line 83.

A little more explanation on the wrong pattern here:

If we say that the input "abc" does not exist and we should add it as a contact, we should add "abc"
What we are doing here is:
If we say that the input "abc" does not exist and we should add it as a contact, we are adding a variant of "abc": we are calling addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber on "abc" which may change it. So we may add a "abcd" (a contact that already exists) and will fail in Auth.

Now the issue is fixed already calling addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber at any point is redundant.

@Pujan92 Let me know if that ^ explained my point better. Or if I should elaborate more.

Pujan92 · 2023-05-09T17:25:09Z

@s77rt I think with only my change(wrong pattern as you mentioned) when we try to add the same phone number again it skips this part but it should not - due to the comparison of non-sms domain number with sms domain number. Logically it should navigate back from this condition but will not due to the above reason.

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/NewContactMethodPage.js

Lines 85 to 89 in 802e406

    
           // If this login already exists, just go back. 
        
           if (lodashGet(props.loginList, userLogin)) { 
        
               Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.SETTINGS_CONTACT_METHODS); 
        
               return; 
        
           }

Can't we merge these 3 lines directly with OptionsListUtils.addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber(login) or we can't due to the replacement of special chars getPhoneNumberWithoutSpecialChars?

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/NewContactMethodPage.js

Lines 81 to 83 in 802e406

    
           const phoneLogin = LoginUtils.appendCountryCode(LoginUtils.getPhoneNumberWithoutSpecialChars(login)); 
        
           const parsedPhoneNumber = parsePhoneNumber(phoneLogin); 
        
           const userLogin = parsedPhoneNumber.possible ? `${parsedPhoneNumber.number.e164}${CONST.SMS.DOMAIN}` : login;

s77rt · 2023-05-09T17:30:18Z

@Pujan92 I'm not sure you understood my point. Here is the workflow:

Make sure loginA does not exist
Add loginA

Here is what we are doing

Make sure loginA does not exist
Add loginB

Pujan92 · 2023-05-09T17:32:19Z

@s77rt I understood your point and tried to provide an example for it(where it gets failed logically without any functional issue).

s77rt · 2023-05-09T17:36:57Z

At this point I don't think it will fail. I just pointed it as a "wrong" pattern.

Pujan92 · 2023-05-09T17:42:00Z

I meant if the other PR won't be there and only mine was merged then this logical issue may present. At this point, I agree it won't as we are adding the sms domain earlier to the given login value before the existence check within loginList. With that, I think we can revert this PR as seems not required now.

pecanoro · 2023-05-09T17:59:26Z

@Pujan92 Can you create a revert PR then? We will still issue payment anyways as all the work was done when we realized about the duplicate.

OSBotify · 2023-05-11T02:44:12Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 1.3.13-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-05-15T08:25:27Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.3.13-5 🚀

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

add sms domain for phone number for new contact method

7ed3816

Pujan92 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 5, 2023 13:33

melvin-bot bot requested review from pecanoro and rushatgabhane and removed request for a team May 5, 2023 13:33

Pujan92 mentioned this pull request May 5, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-05-22] [$1000] Red dot persists after removing phone number contact method #17889

Closed

6 tasks

pecanoro approved these changes May 8, 2023

View reviewed changes

rushatgabhane approved these changes May 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

pecanoro merged commit 2bdeca5 into Expensify:main May 9, 2023

pecanoro mentioned this pull request May 9, 2023

[NewContactPage] fix: same number added twice #18536

Merged

57 tasks

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

Pujan92 mentioned this pull request May 10, 2023

Revert "Fix: Red dot persists after removing phone number contact method" #18705

Merged

55 tasks

OSBotify mentioned this pull request May 11, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-05-11 #18764

Closed

51 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix: Red dot persists after removing phone number contact method #18473

Fix: Red dot persists after removing phone number contact method #18473

Pujan92 commented May 5, 2023

melvin-bot bot commented May 5, 2023

rushatgabhane commented May 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rushatgabhane left a comment

pecanoro commented May 9, 2023

OSBotify commented May 9, 2023

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

pecanoro commented May 9, 2023

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

pecanoro commented May 9, 2023

This comment was marked as outdated.

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pecanoro commented May 9, 2023

OSBotify commented May 11, 2023

OSBotify commented May 15, 2023

Fix: Red dot persists after removing phone number contact method #18473

Fix: Red dot persists after removing phone number contact method #18473

Conversation

Pujan92 commented May 5, 2023

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented May 5, 2023

rushatgabhane commented May 8, 2023 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

rushatgabhane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pecanoro commented May 9, 2023

OSBotify commented May 9, 2023

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

pecanoro commented May 9, 2023

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

pecanoro commented May 9, 2023

This comment was marked as outdated.

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 • edited Loading

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 • edited Loading

s77rt commented May 9, 2023

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 • edited Loading

pecanoro commented May 9, 2023

OSBotify commented May 11, 2023

OSBotify commented May 15, 2023

rushatgabhane commented May 8, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented May 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading