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

Feature: Display backend unreachability message #38377

Merged
merged 33 commits into from
May 14, 2024

Conversation

tienifr
Copy link
Contributor

@tienifr tienifr commented Mar 15, 2024

Details

When user is offline, we display offline message (You appear to be offline.), when user is online but our backend is unreachable, we display We might have a problem. Check out status.expensify.com message.

Fixed Issues

$ #37565
PROPOSAL: #37565 (comment)

Tests

Network Devtools

Web: Open DevTools >> Network
Native: Toggle RN dev menu by CMD + D >> Open Element Inspector >> Network

Block network request

Chrome

Open DevTools >> More tools >> Network request blocking >> Enable network request blocking >> Add network request blocking pattern as https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/api

Screenshot 2024-03-15 at 19 27 27 Screenshot 2024-03-15 at 19 29 51

Safari

  1. Open DevTools >> Sources >> + >> Local Override...
  2. Press + next to Local Overrides >> Select Block type and URL as https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/api with Regular Expression enabled
Screenshot 2024-03-18 at 17 40 34 Screenshot 2024-03-18 at 17 47 51

Native

Hard-code the reachability URL here to an invalid URL.

  1. In Network devtools, verify that Ping command is called every 60 seconds (see Network Devtools)
  2. Block https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/api request to make backend unreachable (see Block network request)
  3. Verify that after a while,We might have a problem. Check out status.expensify.com. message appears and the status page URL can be opened
    =====
  4. Go offline
  5. Verify that You appear to be offline. message appears
  6. Go online
  7. Verify that offline message disappears
  8. Verify that after a while, the unreachability message appears
    =====
  9. Disable network request blocking as in Step 2
  10. Verify that after a while, the unreachability message disappears
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests

QA Steps

NA

  • 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 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 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-03-18.at.18.30.51-compressed.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-03-18.at.18.16.09-compressed.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-03-18.at.18.22.31-compressed.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Untitled.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Untitled.2.mov
Screenshot 2024-03-18 at 18 53 18
MacOS: Desktop
Untitled.2.mov

@tienifr tienifr marked this pull request as ready for review March 18, 2024 11:24
@tienifr tienifr requested a review from a team as a code owner March 18, 2024 11:24
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 18, 2024 11:24
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 18, 2024

@cubuspl42 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]

@@ -256,6 +256,7 @@ export default {
conciergeHelp: 'Por favor, contacta con Concierge para obtener ayuda.',
maxParticipantsReached: ({count}: MaxParticipantsReachedParams) => `Has seleccionado el número máximo (${count}) de participantes.`,
youAppearToBeOffline: 'Parece que estás desconectado.',
weMightHaveProblem: 'We might have a problem. Check out ',
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy was verified here.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you forgot to actually use that copy!

@tienifr
Copy link
Contributor Author

tienifr commented Mar 18, 2024

Currently I found no way to manually block specific network requests on native apps the way we did on web with the support of DevTools. My only solution was to hard-code the reachability URL to make it fail.

@cubuspl42
Copy link
Contributor

@tienifr If there's no better way, we can test it this way on Native. In rare cases, we test things by applying a small code change. Please specify this technique in the "Tests" steps.

@@ -256,6 +256,7 @@ export default {
conciergeHelp: 'Por favor, contacta con Concierge para obtener ayuda.',
maxParticipantsReached: ({count}: MaxParticipantsReachedParams) => `Has seleccionado el número máximo (${count}) de participantes.`,
youAppearToBeOffline: 'Parece que estás desconectado.',
weMightHaveProblem: 'We might have a problem. Check out ',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you forgot to actually use that copy!

src/libs/NetworkConnection.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 88 to 102
fetch(`${CONFIG.EXPENSIFY.DEFAULT_API_ROOT}api?command=Ping`, {
method: 'GET',
cache: 'no-cache',
})
.then((response) => {
if (!response.ok) {
return Promise.resolve(false);
}
return response
.json()
.then((json) => Promise.resolve(json.jsonCode === 200))
.catch(() => Promise.resolve(false));
})
.then(NetworkActions.setIsBackendReachable)
.catch(() => NetworkActions.setIsBackendReachable(false));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are you sure that .then / .catch / ... operators are more readable than the async/await notation?

We're good with the async syntax in .ts files.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tienifr tienifr Mar 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We're good with the async syntax in .ts files.

Oh that's new to me. AFAIK, async/await is forbidden in Style guidelines. Turned out it's fine for TS.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@cubuspl42 Seems like we cannot use async await, except for workflow and test files:

App/.eslintrc.js

Lines 270 to 272 in 73ecb3f

files: ['workflow_tests/**/*.{js,jsx,ts,tsx}', 'tests/**/*.{js,jsx,ts,tsx}', '.github/**/*.{js,jsx,ts,tsx}'],
rules: {
'@lwc/lwc/no-async-await': 'off',

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My bad. I asked on Slack about it. But of course, it's not blocking us.

src/libs/NetworkConnection.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/NetworkConnection.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/components/OfflineIndicator.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/NetworkConnection.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/NetworkConnection.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tienifr
Copy link
Contributor Author

tienifr commented Mar 19, 2024

@cubuspl42 I updated all the comments and replied to your feedbacks above.

src/libs/NetworkConnection.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/NetworkConnection.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tienifr
Copy link
Contributor Author

tienifr commented Mar 20, 2024

@cubuspl42 I extracted local subscribeToBackendReachability and updated minor comments as suggested.

reachabilityMethod: 'GET',
reachabilityTest: (response) => {
function subscribeToBackendReachability() {
return setInterval(() => {
Copy link
Contributor

@cubuspl42 cubuspl42 Mar 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we could return a function like...

const intervalId = setInterval(...);

return () => {
  clearInterval(intervalId);
};

We'd call our util like this...

const unsubscribeFromBackendReachability = !CONFIG.IS_USING_LOCAL_WEB ? subscribeToBackendReachability() : undefined;

This would be symmetric with how we handle NetInfo, and also cleanly abstract the specific API we use in the implementation.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

unsubscribeFromBackendReachability could be called like this:

unsubscribeFromBackendReachability?.();

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated.

Comment on lines 109 to 110
// Note: We are disabling the reachability check when using the local web API since requests can get stuck in a 'Pending' state and are not reliable indicators for "offline".
// If you need to test the "recheck" feature then switch to the production API proxy server.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

state and are not reliable indicators for "offline".

This is outdated 🙁

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated.

src/CONST.ts Outdated
@@ -965,13 +966,14 @@ const CONST = {
MAX_RETRY_WAIT_TIME_MS: 10 * 1000,
PROCESS_REQUEST_DELAY_MS: 1000,
MAX_PENDING_TIME_MS: 10 * 1000,
REACHABILITY_TIMEOUT_MS: 60 * 1000,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually, why timeout? Timeout is the time until we give up some request or operation.

What about BACKEND_REACHABILITY_CHECK_INTERVAL_MS ? If this name feels too long, it could be shortened to BACKEND_CHECK_INTERVAL_MS.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@tienifr Bump on this minor comment

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Forgot to push the changes. Updated.

@tienifr
Copy link
Contributor Author

tienifr commented Apr 23, 2024

subscribeToInternetReachability
... let's keep the fallback logic to check high-availability endpoint when backend is unreachable on all platforms

subscribeToNetworkConnectivityStatus
... Implement based on NetInfo subscriptions / isConnected

By these points, do you mean we implement our own logic for internet, connectivity and backend reachability and ignore netinfo logic?

I myself think the current logic is more readable and understandable. It's just simple: Backend check >> Internet check (if backend failed). We don't have redundant requests, only one Ping every 60 seconds and one high-availability fetch if Ping failed. But I appreciate your suggestion to use enumeration for the states anyway 👍. I'll update it.

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

Taking over as C+

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

Conflicts to resolve here! Assigned you as the reviewer @DylanDylann.

})
.catch(() => {
checkInternetReachability().then((isInternetReachable: boolean) => {
setOfflineStatus(!isInternetReachable);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@tienifr We implemented subscribeToNetworkStatus to detect the onl/off status by using NetInfo.addEventListener. Why do we need to call setOfflineStatus here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@DylanDylann The reason for this check is here: #38377 (comment). Please raise questions if any.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe that you might wonder whether react-native-netinfo's event listener collided with our own custom checkInternetReachability. Note that we only run this check on Android and we do not trigger it if the system is already offline here.

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

DylanDylann commented May 2, 2024

@aldo-expensify The change looks good to me. Could you help to add "ready to build" label for testing?

Whoops, I can test on the emulator

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

@tienifr BUG: Flicker when going online. When going online the indicator message turns into We might have a problem. Check out status.expensify.com a moment before disappearing

Screen.Recording.2024-05-02.at.16.06.02.mov

@tienifr
Copy link
Contributor Author

tienifr commented May 6, 2024

Thanks @DylanDylann I found the root cause and solution for this, but need time to retest the flow on all platforms. I'll push the update today.

@tienifr
Copy link
Contributor Author

tienifr commented May 6, 2024

@DylanDylann That issue happened when the BE was previously being unreachable, then when we turned back online, the networkStatus is unknown causing isOffline to be false:

// If the network status is undefined, we don't treat it as offline. Otherwise, we utilize the isOffline prop.
return {isOffline: networkStatus === CONST.NETWORK.NETWORK_STATUS.UNKNOWN ? false : isOffline};

Now isOffline = false and isBackendReachable = false causing the We might have a problem. to show. Later, we had the logic to set isBackendReachable to true when we turned back online here and that message disappeared.

My solution is that if network status is unknown, we should treat it as if we're online and backend is reachable here. That's what we already did with isOffline as mentioned above.

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

Reviewing today

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

DylanDylann commented May 8, 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
Screen.Recording.2024-05-08.at.15.42.50.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-05-08.at.15.39.12.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-05-08.at.15.34.14.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
safari.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-05-08.at.14.59.56.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-05-08.at.15.14.20.mov

Copy link
Contributor

@DylanDylann DylanDylann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 🥇

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from aldo-expensify May 8, 2024 09:54
@tienifr
Copy link
Contributor Author

tienifr commented May 14, 2024

Hi @aldo-expensify, merge freeze is over, I think we're good to proceed this.

Copy link
Contributor

@aldo-expensify aldo-expensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tested and seems to be working fine

@aldo-expensify aldo-expensify merged commit 783c3de into Expensify:main May 14, 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/aldo-expensify in version: 1.4.74-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/chiragsalian in version: 1.4.74-6 🚀

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

Copy link
Contributor

@tgolen tgolen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had some question in this slack thread: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1717631386394629 and found some things in this PR that I didn't quite understand.

import type InternetReachabilityCheck from './types';

export default function checkInternetReachability(): InternetReachabilityCheck {
return Promise.resolve(true);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this a no-op for all other platforms? Shouldn't this at least be doing a NetInfo.fetch()?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We only need to manually check for internet reachability on Android. This is due to a limitation on Android OS:

/**
* Although Android supports internet reachability check, it only does on initiating the connection.
* We need to implement a test for a highly-available endpoint in case of lost internet after initiation.
*/

Other platforms does not have that problem so we use NetInfo's own check:

const unsubscribeNetInfo = NetInfo.addEventListener((state) => {

checkInternetReachability().then((isInternetReachable: boolean) => {
setOfflineStatus(!isInternetReachable);
setNetWorkStatus(isInternetReachable);
NetworkActions.setIsBackendReachable(false);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this inside the promise for checkInternetReachability()? It doesn't do anything with the isInternetReachable value.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tienifr tienifr Jun 7, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You meant the setIsBackendReachable, didn't you?

Backend unreachability might mean internet unreachability so we need to check the internet first to clarify whether the root cause is internet or backend failure.

If we move the setIsBackendReachable out of the promise, we would have We might have problem ... appear briefly before You appear to be offline when the internet was down.

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