Allow messages only containing backticks to be created

[tgolen]

Fixed Issues

$ #13854

Tests

1. Create several messages: one with a single backtick, one with two backticks, one with three backticks
2. Switch to another chat
3. Switch to the original chat
4. Verify the backtick messages are still there
5. Refresh the page
6. Verify the backtick messages are still there

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as the above, but do step 4-6 after coming back online

QA Steps

Same as the above

• 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 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 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
• 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
  • 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 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 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

[melvin-bot]

@Santhosh-Sellavel @srikarparsi 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]

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

@tgolen I can't send empty blocks still on slack

Screen.Recording.2023-01-03.at.4.17.04.AM.mov

[mountiny]

I think Srikar is going to be OOO now so I can step in and help with the review now.

@Santhosh-Sellavel Thanks for noting that, I think that is more of a feature request at this point though. I think in the PR we should focus on fixing the issue mentioned in the linked GH and then we can potentially improve the markdown logic although that might also fall into some larger project as there is lots of small markdown issues we might have worth refactor in the WAQ spirit.

Lets see if Tim agrees but would you be able to test this PR now?

[tgolen]

I was talking with both @AndrewGable and @roryabraham about this yesterday, and we all kind of came to different conclusions about different things.

I am personally against guessing what a user intends with their message and that anything the user types into the composer is a valid message. This means that messages with only 1, 2, or 3 backticks are all valid messages.

This is against what Slack is doing for the case of 3 backticks. But really, do we need to copy Slack only for the case of 3 backticks? Is it that important? I don't think it's worth it.

Then, you also have to kind of take GitHub behavior into account, which is more on the same side as me (anything typed is a valid message).

The only exception I can give into with my reasoning is messages that only contain whitespace.

I think the best path forward, for now, is to allow messages with anything except whitespace, and then if we really want to nail down the case of 3 backticks, we can open a discussion on Slack to discuss that.

[mountiny]

I think the best path forward, for now, is to allow messages with anything except whitespace, and then if we really want to nail down the case of 3 backticks, we can open a discussion on Slack to discuss that.

I agree with that!

@Santhosh-Sellavel would you be able to follow up with the PR reviewer checklist?

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

Yeah I'll do it today.

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

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 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 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
• 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 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 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Desktop & Web

Screen.Recording.2023-01-05.at.4.40.26.AM.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome & Mobile Web - Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-01-05.at.4.56.37.AM.mov

iOS & Android

Screen.Recording.2023-01-05.at.4.52.43.AM.mov

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

LHN Preview is different from the actual message is this expected? @tgolen

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

@mountiny

Here is the checklist

I've had attached screen recording for 1,2,3,4 backticks, confirm is this expected. More over any new behaviour is its not introduced here, approving as we are able to send backticks alone that is what being addressed here.

cc: @tgolen

[tgolen]

The behavior in the LHN is expected. As far as I know, the LHN does not display any formatted text, so it will just show plaintext previews (and it seems to strip some characters). Anyway, I think that's fine, as well as any of those interesting display issues. Thanks for testing!

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

Cool please assign me this #13854

[tgolen]

Done!

…

On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 5:02 PM Santhoshkumar Sellavel < ***@***.***> wrote: Cool please assign me this #13854 <#13854> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#13941 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJMAB4VWDZCBOKOGQ5ALCDWQYMRFANCNFSM6AAAAAATPDROPY> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

Strange, GH doesn't seem to be linking things properly. The PR is here: #13941

@tgolen Maybe if GH is locked it doesn't allow linking?

[mountiny]

@Santhosh-Sellavel Thank you, really appreciate the thorough testing 🙇

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by @mountiny in version: 1.2.49-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.49-0 🚀

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