-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
Look at the platform to decide how to choose API #12880
Conversation
@parasharrajat @NikkiWines 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] |
@roryabraham @AndrewGable @MariaHCD I have confirmed locally this works as expected. If you could give it a test as well that would be great. Thank you! |
src/libs/HttpUtils.js
Outdated
const nativeStagingSwitcher = (platform === CONST.OS.ANDROID || platform === CONST.OS.IOS) && shouldUseStagingServer; | ||
const webStagingSwitcher = CONFIG.IS_IN_STAGING && shouldUseStagingServer; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe create a lib called shouldUseStagingServer
with two files index.native.js
and index.js
. Then replace all of these with that lib.
If I am not correct, nativeStagingSwitcher is only used for native checks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting, I think this abstraction would be a bit premature, I can be persuaded the other way too, but at the moment his precise logic is used only here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We discourage platform checks so I still think it is fine to create a small lib but I am fine with this. It might have one issue, let me check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@parasharrajat What issue did you have in mind?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On, Mobile web nativeStagingSwitcher
will be true and thus webStagingSwitcher
will never be evaluated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On, Mobile web nativeStagingSwitcher will be true and thus webStagingSwitcher will never be evaluated.
So lets have a look into this:
- if you are in staging web, you want to decide which API to use based on the toggle
- That will be achieved in this case too since we will in the end decide based in the
shouldUseStagingServer
value
- That will be achieved in this case too since we will in the end decide based in the
- in production the
nativeStagingSwitcher
will be false because theshouldUseStagingServer
is always false there as no toggle is shown to change that- that means we would have to consider
webStagingSwitcher
in production otto and that will be false in mobile web since we can read the config soCONFIG.IS_IN_STAGING
is false
- that means we would have to consider
I think we are fine then, do you agree @parasharrajat ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This logic is very confusing to me so I'd have to agree with moving it to separate modules to make this easier to read.
Also I can't help but mention that fixing our staging build so that it actually uses the staging .env is the preferable fix. I'm not sure if there's anything blocking that but it might be worth considering dropping this change and just working towards that fix instead
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also I can't help but mention that fixing our staging build so that it actually uses the staging .env is the preferable fix. I'm not sure if there's anything blocking that but it might be worth considering dropping this change and just working towards that fix instead
This has been considered as a first thing but the way how we deploy is normal and standard procedure. We build just once, for staging using the production .env. This way when we run all the test on this build, fix all the issues, we then just put this build to production. We dont have to build again and risk some odd quirks when building the production and essentially giving our users untested app.
This logic is very confusing to me so I'd have to agree with moving it to separate modules to make this easier to read.
I can add more comments to this, just not sure if adding this to a module of its own will help with clarity. Will additional comments be good enough in your opinion @arosiclair ?
Thank you for the review 🙇
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was about to write the same thing.
nativeStagingSwitcher
should only be used for native all the time.webStagingSwitcher
should only be used for web | Desktop all the time.
A easier cleanup would be.
- Create a lib
shouldUseStagingServer
.
//index.native.js
function shouldUseStagingServer (shouldUseStagingServer){
return shouldUseStagingServer;
}
//index.js
function shouldUseStagingServer (shouldUseStagingServer){
return CONFIG.IS_IN_STAGING && shouldUseStagingServer;
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@parasharrajat Thank you!
Updated with this solution, can you please give this a test?
Testing this now. |
Localhost is giving CORS errors on the web. I think that is fine. |
Yes that is expected, staging env should work in desktop though. @parasharrajat how do you normally test the web when you have App PRs which need to point to staging? |
I use the desktop build to verify. |
Co-authored-by: Rajat Parashar <parasharrajat@users.noreply.github.com>
…fy/App into vit-experiementWithStagingNative
@parasharrajat Thanks for the testing! Updated and fixed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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 verified the steps for local testing are in the
- 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:
- iOS / native
- Android / native
- iOS / Safari
- Android / Chrome
- MacOS / Chrome
- 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 notonIconClick
). - 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 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
- 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.
- 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 usingAvatar
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. foronClick={this.submit}
the methodthis.submit
should be bound tothis
in the constructor) - Any internal methods bound to
this
are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);
ifthis.submit
is never passed to a component event handler likeonClick
) - 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 thatAvatar
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.
LGTM.
🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed
Not sure whom to tag. Anyone can merge. |
Triggered auto assignment to @grgia ( |
✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release. |
I think this PR is causing issues. Requests made on dev seem to be going straight to staging. When I try to log in with a dev account the request fails (and goes to staging). Using a staging account works fine. ios.mov |
Yep, confirmed that reverting this PR resolves the issue. I think the problem is that for native we rely on the value of |
I'm gonna revert this now since it's preventing us from investigating other deploy blockers. |
Aha, I missed that. |
Understandably so since you can't access the dev API. |
Sorry for not catching this after one of the refactors, a new PR is here #13029 still WIP though |
This was reverted no need for QA |
🚀 Deployed to staging by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.32-0 🚀
|
🚀 Deployed to production by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.32-2 🚀
|
🚀 Deployed to production by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.32-2 🚀
|
Details
The shouldUseStaging variable will be false by default and in production App user does not have access to the toggle hence they cannot switch Prod app to use Staging API.
In case of Android and iOS, the Config file is not accessible in staging build (we use production env during building), therefore we need to rely only on the staging toggle in this case and that is why we add this platform specific check.
Fixed Issues
$ #11561
Tests
I have tested locally by building the app in simulator with env.staging and also with the .env.production. Then I used the toggle in settings (for staging) and confirmed the API went to staging servers
Internal tests
Copy the contents from the
.env.production
to your.env
fileRun the iOS and Android app and it should show as Staging
Make sure the toggle for staging api is turned on
Performs some actions in the app
Go to logs and search for the most recent actions by this account
Make sure the servers these request hit are staging servers
Go back to the settings and switch to production API
Repeat and confirm in the logs the request are hitting the production servers
Run the app in dektop with staging env
Confirm the correct servers are hit based on the toggle value
Offline tests
No offline tests required
QA Steps
Open the iOS and Android staging app
Make sure the toggle for staging api is turned on
Performs some actions in the app
Go to logs and search for the most recent actions by this account
Make sure the servers these request hit are staging servers
Go back to the settings and switch to production API
Repeat and confirm in the logs the request are hitting the production servers
Run the staging web
By checkling the logs, confirm the correct servers are being hit based on what stage the toggle is at
PR Author Checklist
I linked the correct issue in the
### Fixed Issues
section aboveI wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
Tests
sectionOffline steps
sectionQA steps
sectionI included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
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)
toggleReport
and notonIconClick
)src/languages/*
filesWaiting for Copy
label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.STYLE.md
) were followedIf 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 usingAvatar
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:
/** comment above it */
this
properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}
the methodthis.submit
should be bound tothis
in the constructor)this
are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);
ifthis.submit
is never passed to a component event handler likeonClick
)If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
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 thatAvatar
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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.
PR Reviewer Checklist
The reviewer will copy/paste it into a new comment and complete it after the author checklist is completed
### Fixed Issues
section aboveTests
sectionOffline steps
sectionQA steps
sectiontoggleReport
and notonIconClick
).src/languages/*
filesWaiting for Copy
label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.STYLE.md
) were followedAvatar
, I verified the components usingAvatar
have been tested & I retested again)/** comment above it */
this
properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}
the methodthis.submit
should be bound tothis
in the constructor)this
are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);
ifthis.submit
is never passed to a component event handler likeonClick
)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG
)Avatar
is modified, I verified thatAvatar
is working as expected in all cases)Screenshots
Web
Cannot build web locally pointing to Staging, done in Desktop and worked fine. See below.
Mobile Web - Chrome
Mobile Web - Safari
Desktop
Desktop Staging, you can see the time and the logs at the same time on the staging servers
Switching to production the logs confirm we are hitting production
iOS
Android