Toggle staging and production server api #10935

mdneyazahmad · 2022-09-12T10:21:05Z

Details

This PR tries to fix the toggle button on staging environment to select either staging (default) or production api server. This will help us catch bugs on server api before, we deploy that to production.

Note: This PR is not testable locally.

Fixed Issues

$ #10163

Test (Web & Desktop)

Open app on web
Go to Settings -> Preference
Verify that Use staging server switch in on by default
Open dev tool
Go to Network tab.
Focus on app and send some message.
Verify that the request in Fetch/XHR is of staging server https://staging.expensify.com or https://staging-secure.expensify.com.
Focus on app and toggle the switch Use staging server (it should be off)
Send some message and verify that Fetch/XHR is of production server (without staging prefixes) https://www.expensify.com or https://secure.expensify.com.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Tests (excluding Web & Desktop)

Open app on web
Go to Settings -> Preference
Verify that Use staging server switch in on by default
Verify that you can toggle the switch

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (PR Author) Checklist

PR Reviewer Checklist

The Contributor+ will copy/paste it into a new comment and complete it after the author checklist is completed

QA Steps (Web & Desktop)

Open app on web
Go to Settings -> Preference
Verify that Use staging server switch in on by default
Open dev tool
Go to Network tab.
Focus on app and send some message.
Verify that the request in Fetch/XHR is of staging server https://staging.expensify.com or https://staging-secure.expensify.com.
Focus on app and toggle the switch Use staging server (it should be off)
Send some message and verify that Fetch/XHR is of production server (without staging prefixes) https://www.expensify.com or https://secure.expensify.com.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

QA Steps (excluding Web & Desktop)

Open app on web
Go to Settings -> Preference
Verify that Use staging server switch in on by default
Verify that you can toggle the switch

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Screenshots

Web

web.mp4

Mobile Web

mweb.mp4

Desktop

desktop.mp4

iOS

ios.mp4

Android

android.mp4

Toggle staging and production server api

mountiny

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 verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- iOS / native
- Android / native
- iOS / Safari
- Android / Chrome
- MacOS / Chrome
- 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 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 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team 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 */
- Any functional components have the displayName property
- 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 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 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

mountiny

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 verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- iOS / native
- Android / native
- iOS / Safari
- Android / Chrome
- MacOS / Chrome
- 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 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 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 was added in all `src/languages/*` files
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team 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 */`
- Any functional components have the `displayName` property
- 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 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 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

mountiny · 2022-09-12T10:31:19Z

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 verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- iOS / native
- Android / native
- iOS / Safari
- Android / Chrome
- MacOS / Chrome
- 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 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 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 was added in all `src/languages/*` files
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team 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 */`
- Any functional components have the `displayName` property
- 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 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 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

mountiny · 2022-09-12T10:47:24Z

😓 that was hard to get the action to pass

mdneyazahmad · 2022-09-12T10:50:51Z

@mountiny thanks for your extra effort in this PR.

OSBotify · 2022-09-12T10:51:39Z

✋ 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 · 2022-09-13T15:18:42Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by @mountiny in version: 1.2.0-0 🚀

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

parasharrajat · 2022-10-11T14:44:21Z

src/libs/HttpUtils.js

    let apiRoot = shouldUseSecure ? CONFIG.EXPENSIFY.SECURE_EXPENSIFY_URL : CONFIG.EXPENSIFY.URL_API_ROOT;

-    if (shouldUseSecure && shouldUseSecureStaging) {
-        apiRoot = CONST.STAGING_SECURE_URL;
+    if (CONFIG.IS_IN_STAGING && shouldUseStagingServer) {


@mountiny I think this check will prevent the Should use Staging server option from being used on other than staging ENV. I guess that is the issue in #11561

Why are we checking for IS_IN_STAGING?

I think this is because if you are in production we dont want to allow you to use staging api. But if you are in staging you can use either @parasharrajat Can you elaborate on why it should not work?

Oh my bad, I see. I got confused. We want users to choose the secure staging server on the PROD app not on the staging app.

Oh, confusing....

You are saying that user should be able to use staging on PROD.

? I am confused I wrote:

I think this is because if you are in production we dont want to allow you to use staging api

If you in production, you can ONLY use production API.

If you in staging App, you can use either and you decide using the toggle

You are saying that user should be able to use staging on PROD.

Quite opposite, the user should be able to use production/staging API on Staging Build.

Aha, got it. staging/Prod is messing with my head 🐈

Merge pull request #10690 from mdneyazahmad/fix/10163-staging-server

4fab68f

Toggle staging and production server api

mdneyazahmad requested a review from a team as a code owner September 12, 2022 10:21

melvin-bot bot requested review from mountiny and Santhosh-Sellavel and removed request for a team September 12, 2022 10:21

mountiny approved these changes Sep 12, 2022

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 42ab433 into Expensify:main Sep 12, 2022

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 13, 2022

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2022-09-13 #10958

Closed

30 tasks

This was referenced Sep 13, 2022

Preferences- Use staging server is not on by default. #10963

Closed

Desktop/ Web- Production server is displayed even if the staging server is enabled #10970

Closed

francoisl mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2022

Add missing code from main into staging branch #10995

Merged

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Sep 16, 2022

[HOLD for payment 2022-09-23] [$500] Update the staging App to use the staging API #10163

Closed

parasharrajat reviewed Oct 11, 2022

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Toggle staging and production server api #10935

Toggle staging and production server api #10935

mdneyazahmad commented Sep 12, 2022 •

edited by mountiny

Loading

mountiny left a comment

mountiny left a comment

mountiny commented Sep 12, 2022

mountiny commented Sep 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mdneyazahmad commented Sep 12, 2022

OSBotify commented Sep 12, 2022

OSBotify commented Sep 13, 2022

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mountiny Oct 11, 2022

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022

mountiny Oct 11, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel Oct 11, 2022

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022

Toggle staging and production server api #10935

Toggle staging and production server api #10935

Conversation

mdneyazahmad commented Sep 12, 2022 • edited by mountiny Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Test (Web & Desktop)

Tests (excluding Web & Desktop)

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (PR Author) Checklist

PR Reviewer Checklist

QA Steps (Web & Desktop)

QA Steps (excluding Web & Desktop)

Screenshots

Web

Mobile Web

Desktop

iOS

Android

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny commented Sep 12, 2022

mountiny commented Sep 12, 2022 • edited Loading

mdneyazahmad commented Sep 12, 2022

OSBotify commented Sep 12, 2022

OSBotify commented Sep 13, 2022

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Santhosh-Sellavel Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mdneyazahmad commented Sep 12, 2022 •

edited by mountiny

Loading

mountiny commented Sep 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat Oct 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading