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

fix: replace new report with preexisting #24320

Conversation

pasyukevich
Copy link
Contributor

@pasyukevich pasyukevich commented Aug 9, 2023

Details

This PR handles the case where the client attempts to create a new DM/group-DM with users they already have a DM/group-DM with. This can happen if:

  1. You attempt to DM someone's secondary login when you already have a DM with their primary login
  2. You attempt to DM an email address of someone you don't "know" who you've DM'd before using their accountID

Fixed Issues

$ #15511

Tests

  1. Create an account (userA) that has both a primary and secondary login
  2. From accountB send a message to userA using userA's primary login
  3. From accountB create a new chat with userA using their secondary login
  4. Once the API responds (may take a moment), you should be re-routed to the existing chat with userA as long as you are still on the optimistically created chat with userA. Otherwise, you should see the optimistically created chat disappear from the LHN
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

This cannot be done offline since it requires an API response. However if you create the report while offline, once you come back online, step 4 from above should still happen.

QA Steps

  1. Create an account (userA) that has both a primary and secondary login
  2. From accountB send a message to userA using userA's primary login
  3. From accountB create a new chat with userA using their secondary login
  4. Once the API responds (may take a moment), you should be re-routed to the existing chat with userA as long as you are still on the optimistically created chat with userA. Otherwise, you should see the optimistically created chat disappear from the LHN
  • 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
Mobile Web - Chrome
android.web.mp4
Mobile Web - Safari
ios.web.mp4
Desktop
desktop.mp4
iOS
ios.mp4
Android
android.mp4

@pasyukevich pasyukevich force-pushed the bugfix/handle-open-report-with-second-login branch 4 times, most recently from 893223a to 0527492 Compare August 10, 2023 12:15
@pasyukevich pasyukevich marked this pull request as ready for review August 10, 2023 15:05
@pasyukevich pasyukevich requested a review from a team as a code owner August 10, 2023 15:05
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from mananjadhav and removed request for a team August 10, 2023 15:05
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 10, 2023

@mananjadhav 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]

@puneetlath
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for this @pasyukevich. Can you help me understand conceptually the difference between Navigation.TYPE and Navigation.ACTION_TYPE and what the difference between UP and FORCED_UP is?

@puneetlath
Copy link
Contributor

Also, looks like your commits need to be signed.

@pasyukevich
Copy link
Contributor Author

pasyukevich commented Aug 11, 2023

Thanks for this @pasyukevich. Can you help me understand conceptually the difference between Navigation.TYPE and Navigation.ACTION_TYPE and what the difference between UP and FORCED_UP is?

Sure,

TYPE - navigation types for linkTo function
ACTION_TYPE - navigation types from the react-navigation

'UP' is already used over the app and make replace action
'FORCE_UP' is new one to add additional case for replace action

Currently, it is not possible to run 'UP' in some cases, cause the previous statement is if (action.payload.name === NAVIGATORS.CENTRAL_PANE_NAVIGATOR && getTopmostReportId(root.getState()) !== getTopmostReportId(state)))
To handle this without the problems with the current logic - 'FORCE_UP' was added

@puneetlath
Copy link
Contributor

Got it, thanks for the explanation.

@mananjadhav can you give it the first review?

Also @pasyukevich looks like you have a conflict.

Signed-off-by: Yauheni Pasiukevich <pasyukevich@live.com>
Signed-off-by: Yauheni Pasiukevich <pasyukevich@live.com>
@pasyukevich pasyukevich force-pushed the bugfix/handle-open-report-with-second-login branch from f9583c7 to b915573 Compare August 14, 2023 12:04
@pasyukevich
Copy link
Contributor Author

Conflict resolved

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, I am going to be reviewing this today.

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

@pasyukevich I had done a partial review, earlier and I see we're force pushing the changes everytime. Any specific reason we're force pushing the changes?

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

Checked the code, and I also tested this on the Web works fine. Finishing other platforms now.

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

mananjadhav commented Aug 14, 2023

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 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 reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web
web-preexisting-chat-report-id.mov
Mobile Web - Chrome
mweb-chrome-preexisting-chat-report-id.mov
Mobile Web - Safari
mweb-safari-preexisting-chat-report-id.mov
Desktop
desktop-preexisting-chat-report-id.mov
iOS
ios-preexisting-chat-report-id.mov
Android
android-preexisting-chat-report-id.mov

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

mananjadhav commented Aug 14, 2023

My android build is still running. Will post the video as soon as it is done. Android video uploaded.

But quick question @pasyukevich @puneetlath, the flow works good overall but do you feel the transition is a bit janky? There is no feedback to the user who's being redirected to another page. I am not sure how relevant is it for the end users?

@puneetlath
Copy link
Contributor

I agree it's a bit abrupt, but I think that's ok for now. We can always provide more visual feedback if we think it's needed in the future.

Copy link
Contributor

@puneetlath puneetlath left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good! Just a couple suggestions to try and make the comments clearer.

src/libs/Navigation/linkTo.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/Navigation/linkTo.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@pasyukevich
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mananjadhav There wasn't any specific reason, just to resolve conflict without additional commits

Regarding transition, I also agree that it can be improved in future

Signed-off-by: Yauheni Pasiukevich <pasyukevich@live.com>
@puneetlath puneetlath merged commit 043b1ed into Expensify:main Aug 16, 2023
13 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/puneetlath in version: 1.3.55-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath 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 ✅

@@ -849,6 +849,20 @@ function handleReportChanged(report) {
return;
}

// It is possible that we optimistically created a DM/group-DM for a set of users for which a report already exists.
// In this case, the API will let us know by returning a preexistingReportID.
// We should clear out the optimistically created report and re-route the user to the preexisting report.
Copy link
Contributor

@youssef-lr youssef-lr May 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Where does this happen: We should clear out the optimistically created report and re-route the user to the preexisting report.? I've made use of the preexistingReportID to navigate the user to an existing report after creating a money request, but the stale optimistic report does not get removed for me. I had to add Onyx.merge(${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${report?.reportID}, null); after the navigation line

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm, good question. I'm not seeing it either. Maybe we forgot to do it?

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