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

[No QA] Create new Edit Card Limit page #45397

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Jul 19, 2024

Conversation

VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor

@VickyStash VickyStash commented Jul 15, 2024

Details

Creates new Edit Card Limit page.

Fixed Issues

$ #44326
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Pre-step:
Comment out the feature check in the WorkspaceEditCardLimitPage file, so you can access the screen.

Steps:

  1. Open any workspace.
  2. Update the URL to end with /expensify-card/1/edit/limit, for example: https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/settings/workspaces/YOUR_POLICY_ID/expensify-card/1/edit/limit.
    Make sure the Card limit page looks as expected.
  3. Enter the value (ex 10$) and press save. Make sure the warning about transactions is shown and looks as expected.

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

N/A

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
    • 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

android1
android2

Android: mWeb Chrome

android_web
android_web2

iOS: Native

Simulator Screenshot - iPhone 15 - 2024-07-16 at 17 51 54

ios2

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios_web1
ios_web2

MacOS: Chrome / Safari web1 web2
MacOS: Desktop

desktop1
desktop2

@VickyStash VickyStash changed the title [WIP] [No QA] Create new Edit Card Limit page [No QA] Create new Edit Card Limit page Jul 15, 2024
@VickyStash VickyStash marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2024 12:58
@VickyStash VickyStash requested a review from a team as a code owner July 15, 2024 12:58
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from DylanDylann and removed request for a team July 15, 2024 12:58
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 15, 2024

@DylanDylann 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]

@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

Resolving conflicts...

# Conflicts:
#	src/ROUTES.ts
#	src/SCREENS.ts
#	src/languages/en.ts
#	src/languages/es.ts
#	src/libs/Navigation/AppNavigator/ModalStackNavigators/index.tsx
#	src/libs/Navigation/linkingConfig/FULL_SCREEN_TO_RHP_MAPPING.ts
#	src/libs/Navigation/types.ts
@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

@DylanDylann kind bump 🙂

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

trjExpensify commented Jul 16, 2024

@DylanDylann are you able to get to this one now, or should we switch in @allgandalf while you work on reviewing #45452?

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

I am reviewing this PR

@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

@DylanDylann kind bump 🙂

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

Sure, I am on it

inputID={INPUT_IDS.LIMIT}
ref={inputCallbackRef}
/>
<ConfirmModal
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB, It is better to move ConfirmModal outside the form. But the current code also works well

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 It was easier to pass form values to ConfirmModal this way

const errors = ValidationUtils.getFieldRequiredErrors(values, [INPUT_IDS.LIMIT]);

// We only want integers to be sent as the limit
if (!Number(values.limit) || !Number.isInteger(Number(values.limit))) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB: I think we shouldn't allow users type decimal (can't type "." character). It would be better

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The same approach is used on the LimitStep page, see the explanation. So let's keep it this way for now

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from mountiny July 18, 2024 10:21
const updateCardLimit = (newLimit: string) => {
setIsConfirmModalVisible(false);

// TODO: add API call when it's supported https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/407831
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The API endpoint UpdateExpensifyCardLimit is live on staging, can we integrate it as part of this PR? :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, I will fo it!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@MariaHCD Is it possible for me to test this endpoint over the realistic card in the E/App?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, no, not yet. The backend PR to configure a workspace for the Expensify Card is still WIP so we can't test any issuing cards or updating cards at this point.

We can do full E2E tests once more of the backend pieces are implemented.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@MariaHCD I've made a call for non-existing card and it returned 200 response. Is it okay?
I expected something with 404 😅
image

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Integrated UpdateExpensifyCardLimit API call: 5e31125

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, thanks for catching that. Looking at our backend logs, we did throw a 404 but the API didn't rethrow the exception. cc: @nkuoch

mountiny
mountiny previously approved these changes Jul 18, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes look good to me, I wonder if we need to however add the real api in this PR for now if its not possible to create the real card yet, hence the entire flow is not testable yet.

@MariaHCD I think we should just let this go with mocked data and come back to integration once the card creation flow is integrated, what do you think?

Copy link
Contributor

@MariaHCD MariaHCD left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ooops, we've got conflicts.

@MariaHCD
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should just let this go with mocked data and come back to integration once the card creation flow is integrated, what do you think?

I think we can keep the integration code here for now so it saves us a bit of work later. Is there a benefit to having mocked data here instead?

# Conflicts:
#	src/ONYXKEYS.ts
#	src/ROUTES.ts
#	src/libs/Navigation/AppNavigator/ModalStackNavigators/index.tsx
#	src/libs/Navigation/linkingConfig/FULL_SCREEN_TO_RHP_MAPPING.ts
#	src/libs/Navigation/types.ts
@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

@MariaHCD @mountiny conflicts are resolved 🙂

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

@VickyStash Detail page is ready. Please add logic to navigate to the edit card limit page

Screen.Recording.2024-07-19.at.15.08.41.mov

@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

@VickyStash Detail page is ready. Please add logic to navigate to the edit card limit page

@DylanDylann This PR includes this update, link

Are you sure you have checked on the right branch?

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

@VickyStash Whoops... Let's me check again

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from mountiny July 19, 2024 08:30
Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mountiny mountiny merged commit 54fdb24 into Expensify:main Jul 19, 2024
17 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/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-2 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-3 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.10-7 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.0.11-5 🚀

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

@aldo-expensify
Copy link
Contributor

Coming from the server error, I noticed that you can enter to the view to edit the limit even if there is not card setup:

https://staging.new.expensify/settings/workspaces/YOUR_POLICY_ID/expensify-card/1/edit/limit

if the form is submitted then, it causes a server error. Should we have implemented something that disables the button or closes the modal if the card with cardID=1 doesn't exist?

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

Or the standard "NotFound" page when you try to access a page that you can't access or doesn't exist?

@aldo-expensify
Copy link
Contributor

That sounds like a good option too

@VickyStash
Copy link
Contributor Author

Or the standard "NotFound" page when you try to access a page that you can't access or doesn't exist?

I think it should be relevant not only for this route but for similar as well:

settings/workspaces/:policyID/expensify-card/:cardID
settings/workspaces/:policyID/expensify-card/:cardID/edit/name
settings/workspaces/:policyID/expensify-card/:cardID/edit/limit
settings/workspaces/:policyID/expensify-card/:cardID/edit/limit-type

I can implement it during BE integration, WDYT?

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

Makes sense to me! CC: @mountiny

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