fix: extend phone number validation to handle additional '+' characters #24133

akinwale · 2023-08-03T22:51:48Z

Details

With the regular expression updated to handle additional '+' signs in the login input, this validates these values as phone numbers and displays the corresponding error message.

Fixed Issues

$ #23803
PROPOSAL: $ #23803 (comment)

Tests

Access the login form.
Test 1: Enter an invalid phone number with additional '+' signs (e.g. 155828282+28888).
Test 2: Enter an invalid phone number starting with a '+' sign, containing additional '+' signs (e.g. +1558223322+12888322).
Verify that the validation error message displayed mentions that the input is an invalid phone number.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

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
- 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

23803-web.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

23803-android-chrome.webm

Mobile Web - Safari

23803-ios-safari.mp4

Desktop

23803-desktop.mp4

iOS

23803-ios-native.mp4

Android

23803-android-native.webm

melvin-bot · 2023-08-03T22:51:53Z

@mollfpr 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]

mollfpr · 2023-08-04T11:51:07Z

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

24133.Web.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

24133.mWeb-Chrome.mp4

Mobile Web - Safari

24133.mWeb-Safari.mp4

Desktop

24133.Desktop.mp4

iOS

24133.iOS.mp4

Android

Screen_Recording_20230806_221428_New.Expensify.1.mp4

mollfpr · 2023-08-04T13:03:47Z

src/pages/signin/LoginForm.js

@@ -125,6 +125,12 @@ function LoginForm(props) {
            return;
        }

+        // Every input that starts with '+' should be validated as a phone number.
+        if (loginTrim.startsWith('+') && !ValidationUtils.isNumericWithSpecialChars(loginTrim)) {


@akinwale What case can this happen?

Isn't this considered an invalid email?

@mollfpr This can be considered a valid email address, yes, but this is a very rare edge case that is unlikely to happen. Also, based on #23803 (comment), the input starting with a "+" should have the phone number error displayed (regardless of the characters that come afterwards).

It was also mentioned in previous comments in the issue thread that as long as the input starts with a "+" sign, it will be considered a phone number. See #23803 (comment) for instance.

There is a slim chance that someone might interpret it as a phone number due to the presence of numbers and a plus sign. It does not adhere to a typical phone number format. It is more likely to be an incorrect or invalid email-like string.

I'm afraid that someone will think differently after this PR is merged.

If the value is not a standard email address that should have the "@" symbol, separating the local part (before "@"), and the domain part (after "@"), with plus sign leading, then we can consider this an invalid phone number. E.g. +3232asdas323232.

I initially thought we only caught the invalid phone number for the numeric value.

Can you clarify the change I should make here? Here's what I was able to understand:

If the input contains an '@' even if it starts with '+', then it should be treated as an email, and show the corresponding error message for invalid email address. I can add another conditional check for this.

In every other case where it doesn't look like an email, for example: +aa228833aa.cc it will be considered as an invalid phone number, and the phone number invalid message will be shown.

Are these assumptions correct?

I think the second case is more appropriate with an email address error because it has a word and . for the domain part of an email address.

I think the second case is more appropriate with an email address error because it has a word and . for the domain part of an email address.

I don't think it really matters much, because an email address must always contain an '@' sign.

However, in this case, it looks like the solution would be to only consider inputs that contain digits (numeric 0-9) and the special symbols (+, (, () and -) as a phone number (show phone number error), and then all other cases as an email address (show email address error), in which case, the only thing that needs to be updated is the regex, and I can remove this check: if (loginTrim.startsWith('+') && !ValidationUtils.isNumericWithSpecialChars(loginTrim)) {.

Yeah, the updated regex seems enough.

Pushed a new commit. All tests run ok as expected.

mollfpr

LGTM and tests well 👍

OSBotify · 2023-08-07T17:56:08Z

✋ 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 · 2023-08-07T18:54:04Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.3.51-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-08-09T08:43:12Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.3.51-2 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-08-09T09:12:08Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.3.52-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-08-09T09:50:51Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.3.52-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-08-10T20:09:17Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.3.52-5 🚀

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

extend phone number validation to handle additional '+' characters

dcf3274

akinwale requested a review from a team as a code owner August 3, 2023 22:51

melvin-bot bot requested review from mollfpr and removed request for a team August 3, 2023 22:51

akinwale mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-08-16] [$1000] Incorrect Error Handling for Invalid Phone Number during Sign-In #23803

Closed

6 tasks

mollfpr reviewed Aug 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

do not treat every input that starts with '+' as a phone number

dd5b03f

akinwale requested a review from mollfpr August 4, 2023 16:07

mollfpr approved these changes Aug 6, 2023

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from thienlnam August 6, 2023 15:22

thienlnam approved these changes Aug 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

thienlnam merged commit 09f6b6b into Expensify:main Aug 7, 2023
13 of 14 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Aug 7, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-08-07 #24230

Closed

98 tasks

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-08-09 #24307

Closed

87 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: extend phone number validation to handle additional '+' characters #24133

fix: extend phone number validation to handle additional '+' characters #24133

akinwale commented Aug 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 3, 2023

mollfpr commented Aug 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023

akinwale Aug 4, 2023

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

akinwale Aug 4, 2023

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023

akinwale Aug 4, 2023

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023

akinwale Aug 4, 2023

mollfpr left a comment

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 9, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 9, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 9, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 10, 2023

fix: extend phone number validation to handle additional '+' characters #24133

fix: extend phone number validation to handle additional '+' characters #24133

Conversation

akinwale commented Aug 3, 2023 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 3, 2023

mollfpr commented Aug 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

akinwale Aug 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

akinwale Aug 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

akinwale Aug 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

akinwale Aug 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mollfpr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 7, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 9, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 9, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 9, 2023

OSBotify commented Aug 10, 2023

akinwale commented Aug 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mollfpr commented Aug 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mollfpr Aug 4, 2023 •

edited

Loading