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 empty assignee in TaskHeader and update permission to mark Task complete/incomplete/cancel in Task report #20689

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Jun 18, 2023

Conversation

hoangzinh
Copy link
Contributor

@hoangzinh hoangzinh commented Jun 13, 2023

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #19631
PROPOSAL: #19631 (comment)

Tests

  1. A creates a task in the group DM (A,B andC) and assigned it to B
  2. Log in as C, navigate to task report above
  3. Verify that C can see B displayName in the TaskHeader as an assignee.
  4. Verify that C can not click on "Mark as done" button and C can not see the three dot in top right
  5. Log in as B, navigate to task report above
  6. Verify that B can see B displayName in the TaskHeader as an assignee
  7. Verify that B can click on "Mark as done" button and can see three dot in top right
  8. Login as A
  9. Repeat 6->7
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Could not test when offline because B&C won't receive new task

QA Steps

Same as Tests

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

Screenshots/Videos

Web
Screen.Recording.2023-06-13.at.23.13.27.-.web.mp4
Mobile Web - Chrome
Screen.Recording.2023-06-13.at.23.38.26.-.android.chrome.mp4
Mobile Web - Safari
Screen.Recording.2023-06-14.at.00.08.26.-.ios.safari.mov
Desktop
Screen.Recording.2023-06-13.at.23.25.41.-.desktop.mp4
iOS
Screen.Recording.2023-06-14.at.00.06.17.-.ios.mp4
Android
Screen.Recording.2023-06-13.at.23.49.50.-.android.mp4

@@ -106,7 +116,7 @@ const HeaderView = (props) => {
}

// Task is not closed
if (props.report.stateNum !== CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED && props.report.statusNum !== CONST.REPORT.STATUS.CLOSED) {
if (props.report.stateNum !== CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED && props.report.statusNum !== CONST.REPORT.STATUS.CLOSED && isTaskAssigneeOrTaskOwner) {
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'm not sure this one. Should we allow assignee to cancel the task?

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 so. If this is a flow we do not want in the future we can create another issue for it. But I believe an assignee should be able to cancel a task.

@hoangzinh hoangzinh marked this pull request as ready for review June 13, 2023 17:22
@hoangzinh hoangzinh requested a review from a team as a code owner June 13, 2023 17:22
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from joelbettner and mollfpr and removed request for a team June 13, 2023 17:23
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 13, 2023

@joelbettner @mollfpr 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]

Copy link
Contributor

@joelbettner joelbettner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a question posted for you so I can make sure I am clear on what is happening...

const isOpen = props.report.stateNum === CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.OPEN && props.report.statusNum === CONST.REPORT.STATUS.OPEN;
const isCompleted = props.report.stateNum === CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED && props.report.statusNum === CONST.REPORT.STATUS.APPROVED;

useEffect(() => {
TaskUtils.setTaskReport(props.report);
Task.setTaskReport(props.report);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not that it is wrong, but can you please explain to me why we are switching from using the TaskUtils method and using the Task method instead?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hoangzinh hoangzinh Jun 13, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I observe from what we did for other features, basically we will have 2 libs:

  • an action lib (for example libs/actions/Report.js, libs/actions/ReportActions.js) => we usually put all the function that need to update to Onyx or make API call
  • a utils lib (for example libs/ReportUtils.js, libs/ReportActionsUtils.js) => a shared utils like get/set/check

In this PR, I'm going to introduce new module called TaskUtils (and put some new get/set function into there). So I replaced old TaskUtils name (It's actually actions/Task) to Task to avoid confusing in this TaskHeader component.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

btw, I just wanna correct the imported name here

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/9a2400ca0d8e438fc7b8d83754ddf516624bfdbc/src/components/TaskHeader.js#LL23C1-L23C1

It's importing Task action but named it as TaskUtils. By introducing TaskUtils, I would like to correct it.

If we think it's not correct. I can revert the change (combine new utils TaskUtils into exiting Task action lib)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@hoangzinh I think we can use actions/Task.js for the new method you introduce; not necessary to create a new utils file for the task. We already have a couple of utils methods in actions/Task.js and we don't want to confuse anyone what the different methods in actions/Task.js and libs/TaskUtils.js.

I believe a method unrelated to API action should be in the utils file, but the damage is already done.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mollfpr okay. Let me move into the actions/Task

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 moved all my new methods to actions/Task. Please help me to review this PR again. Thanks ❤️

@@ -106,7 +116,7 @@ const HeaderView = (props) => {
}

// Task is not closed
if (props.report.stateNum !== CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED && props.report.statusNum !== CONST.REPORT.STATUS.CLOSED) {
if (props.report.stateNum !== CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED && props.report.statusNum !== CONST.REPORT.STATUS.CLOSED && isTaskAssigneeOrTaskOwner) {
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 so. If this is a flow we do not want in the future we can create another issue for it. But I believe an assignee should be able to cancel a task.

joelbettner
joelbettner previously approved these changes Jun 14, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@joelbettner joelbettner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This LGTM 👍

@mollfpr all yours.

@mollfpr
Copy link
Contributor

mollfpr commented Jun 15, 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 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
20689.Web.mov
Mobile Web - Chrome
20689.mWeb.Chrome.mov
Mobile Web - Safari
20689.mWeb.Safari.mov
Desktop
20689.Desktop.mov
iOS
20689.iOS.mov
Android
20689.Android.mov

Copy link
Contributor

@mollfpr mollfpr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 👍

@joelbettner
Copy link
Contributor

@hoangzinh there are some conflicts.

}

const reportAction = ReportActionsUtils.getParentReportAction(taskReport);
return lodashGet(reportAction, 'childManagerEmail', null);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mollfpr @joelbettner I just merged latest main to this PR and I realize that we're going to change from "email" -> "accountID" a lot of place.

For "childManagerEmail", do you know when will the BE return "childManagerAccountID"? for reportAction of taskReport? (as we optimistic build from FE side)?

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.js

Lines 1239 to 1240 in 7b00c47

reportAction.reportAction.childManagerEmail = taskAssignee;
reportAction.reportAction.childManagerAccountID = taskAssigneeAccountID;

Currently, I have a blocker that most of utils (get avatar/display name) is changed to accountID

function getDisplayNameForParticipant(accountID, shouldUseShortForm = false) {

So if we only have email, we can not get the display name/avatar.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nvm, I found a way to get accountID for given login.

@hoangzinh
Copy link
Contributor Author

hoangzinh commented Jun 17, 2023

@mollfpr @joelbettner I merged latest main to this PR. I also refactor it to use accountID instead of email. Please help me review it again. Thanks

Copy link
Contributor

@mollfpr mollfpr 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 joelbettner June 18, 2023 05:29
@joelbettner joelbettner merged commit a741576 into Expensify:main Jun 18, 2023
@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/joelbettner in version: 1.3.30-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.3.30-5 🚀

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

@@ -74,7 +73,7 @@ function TaskHeader(props) {
>
<View style={[styles.flexRow, styles.alignItemsCenter, styles.justifyContentBetween, styles.pv3]}>
<View style={[styles.flexRow, styles.alignItemsCenter, styles.justifyContentBetween]}>
{!_.isEmpty(assigneeEmail) && (
{assigneeEmail && assigneeEmail > 0 && (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

While merging main, this could have been avoided. String && View is anti-pattern and already in checklist.

verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.

@@ -59,7 +73,7 @@ function TaskHeader(props) {
>
<View style={[styles.flexRow, styles.alignItemsCenter, styles.justifyContentBetween, styles.pv3]}>
<View style={[styles.flexRow, styles.alignItemsCenter, styles.justifyContentBetween]}>
{props.report.managerID && props.report.managerID > 0 && (
{assigneeAccountID && assigneeAccountID > 0 && (
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Coming from #22398:
I understand this logic already existed but we should avoid this pattern and it's already in checklist.
This could have been fixed earlier while merging main.

I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.

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.

5 participants