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: three not found view v2 #41665

Merged

Conversation

kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor

@kosmydel kosmydel commented May 6, 2024

Details

This is the second version, after the first one PR #36409 was reverted due to the #40509 issue.

This PR addresses three things:

  • fixes multiple not-found views,
  • fixes the back button,
  • refactors the WorkspaceMembersPage to use the WorkspacePageWithSections component.

Fixed Issues

$ #34234
$ #36266
$ #40509
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  1. Do tests from the QA Steps section.
  2. You can test the 6th QA step using this command: adb shell am start -a android.intent.action.VIEW -d "new-expensify://settings/workspaces/kjashdjkashdaks/rateandunit"

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

  1. Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
  2. Verify that navigation works correctly.
  3. Verify the deleting workspace flow:
  • [Main device] Create a new Workspace
  • [Main device] Navigate to Members
  • [Secondary device] Delete Workspace created in the Main device
  • [Main device] Click on "Go back to home page" in LHN
  1. On the Web (multiple not found views):
  1. Paste the links from step 4 in the chat, and click links, to verify that in-app deep links are working correctly.
  2. Verify the regression:
    1. Open the Android app
    2. Create a workspace
    3. Go to workspace settings page
    4. From another app deep link to any of these links:
    1. Try also other links.
  3. Check if fix: Preferences page is visible for a moment when navigate via text link in Focus Mode popup #38977 is not broken:
    • Open the New Expensify app.
    • Login
    • Popup appears (or type Onyx.set('focusModeNotification', true); in console)
    • Click on the text link “Settings”
    • Verify that the Preferences page is not visible and priority mode page opens
  4. Test everything without strict mode. Go to CONFIG.ts and set CONFIG.USE_REACT_STRICT_MODE to false.

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

Test case Video
3 https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/104823336/22982f76-c8cb-4000-8283-245c59d504e4
4, 5 https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/104823336/4c3724c8-a9b9-4b33-aac5-eee82eb3e64c
6 https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/104823336/14ae7a66-380f-4e09-82bc-8be3cba84c84
7 https://github.com/Expensify/App/assets/104823336/705636b8-b32a-47a8-9755-67b30c5940b3
Android: Native
android.mov
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari & Android: mWeb Chrome
mweb.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mov

@kosmydel kosmydel marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2024 09:51
@kosmydel kosmydel requested a review from a team as a code owner May 8, 2024 09:51
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from fedirjh and shawnborton and removed request for a team May 8, 2024 09:51
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented May 8, 2024

@shawnborton @fedirjh 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]

@kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor Author

kosmydel commented May 8, 2024

I believe that @situchan should be assigned here, as he was C+ of the original PR. I'm not sure if he is still OOO.

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

How does something like this happen?
CleanShot 2024-05-08 at 08 22 30@2x
CleanShot 2024-05-08 at 08 23 04@2x

I thought we were trying to avoid that?

@kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor Author

kosmydel commented May 8, 2024

How does something like this happen?
I thought we were trying to avoid that?

I think that we discussed it here:

During the navigation initialisation we don't know yet if the policy exists, so by the default, we mount the RHP.

If you meant something else please let me know.

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Got it, thanks for confirming 👍

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

I am back. There's conflict

@kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am back. There's conflict

I've resolved the conflict :)

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

-   }, [canAccessRoute, policy, shouldShowNotFoundPage]);
+   }, [canAccessRoute, shouldShowNotFoundPage]);

Is this the main change to fix regression of #40509?

@kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is this the main change to fix regression of #40509?

As far as I remember, yes. We shouldn't call the useEffect on each policy change. I'm not sure how the policy dependency got there initially.

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

Please fix conflict

@kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please fix conflict

Done ✅

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

situchan commented May 29, 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
android.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
mchrome.mov
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
msafari.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mov

More tests:

  1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19_Afl6ygXR5jS8eCn7HKnysmDIzoNK0z/view?usp=sharing

4,5. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1krc0uqKOvbXQu74TsHgYenGqbSmskiQ5/view?usp=sharing

image
image

  1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JL6fBf5xl-nFFDjy-9T3CDE5MfRJnyI1/view?usp=sharing

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

Another conflict

@kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor Author

kosmydel commented Jul 4, 2024

We might need to put on hold until concurrent mode safely reaches production. There's an attempt to #44779 to unblock deploy.

I think this one was closed. I've pulled the main, but I haven't tested it yet.

@kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor Author

kosmydel commented Jul 8, 2024

@situchan do you think we can proceed with this PR?

@neil-marcellini
Copy link
Contributor

Gentle bump @situchan

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

situchan commented Jul 9, 2024

@kosmydel yes, I think we can proceed. Please mark as ready for review

@kosmydel
Copy link
Contributor Author

kosmydel commented Jul 9, 2024

@situchan I'm marking it as ready for review.

FYI I've added a new test step, to test everything without Strict Mode, as this is what will be on production/staging.

@kosmydel kosmydel marked this pull request as ready for review July 9, 2024 08:49
if (!shouldShowNotFoundPage && canAccessRoute) {
return;
}
if (CONFIG.USE_REACT_STRICT_MODE && wasRendered.current) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't like using USE_REACT_STRICT_MODE flag here. It's not used anywhere yet except in StrictModeWrapper.

Copy link
Contributor

@BrtqKr BrtqKr Jul 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@situchan it wasn't necessary in the end, so we've removed it and merged main. If that's everything I think we might proceed with the review.

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

Lint failing

@BrtqKr
Copy link
Contributor

BrtqKr commented Jul 19, 2024

@neil-marcellini @shawnborton would you mind taking a look 🥺

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Happy to review from a design standpoint if there are any updated screenshots available.

@BrtqKr
Copy link
Contributor

BrtqKr commented Jul 22, 2024

@shawnborton In this case, there would be no need for the review. This was only a small change in the code, it shouldn't affect anything in terms of design.

@neil-marcellini gentle bump

Copy link
Contributor

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The code looks fine, and I'll put my trust in @situchan's testing.

@neil-marcellini neil-marcellini merged commit 7aed308 into Expensify:main Jul 23, 2024
14 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/neil-marcellini in version: 9.0.12-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.0.12-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/neil-marcellini in version: 9.0.13-0 🚀

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

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