Double Tapping Options Row Navigating Twice Fix And Navigation Refactoring To Resolve It From Queueing When There’s Already a Navigation Is In Progress

[syedsaroshfarrukhdot]

Details

Part 1

Updating OptionRow so that it:

1. Refactoring selectRow function to return Promise which is waited to resolve before enabling TouchableOpacity.
2. Disables the TouchableOpacity in its onPress callback
3. Saves a reference to the value returned by props.onSelectRow.
4. Calls InteractionManager.runAfterInteraction, and in the callback to runAfterInteraction:
5. Checks if the value from 2.iii is a promise. If so, wait for the promise to resolve.
6. Then re-enables the TouchableOpacity (or rather, returns it to the value of props.isDisabled)

Part 2

Updating the Navigation lib:

• Update canNavigate to:

1. First, to checks if isNavigating is true. If it is, it returns a new promise that resolves to false and logs a message.
   Summary : The "isNavigating" variable in this function is used to prevent multiple executions of the promise that navigates to a new screen. It first checks if navigation is already in progress by checking the "isNavigating" variable, and if so, it resolves with "false" and logs a message indicating that the navigation failed because it was already in progress. If navigation is not in progress, it checks if the navigation reference is ready and if not, it resolves with "false" and logs a message indicating that the navigation failed because the reference was not yet ready. This ensures that only one navigation promise can be executed at a time.

2. If isNavigating is false, it returns a new promise that: uses the InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions() method to wait for any ongoing interactions to finish.
   i. checks if the navigationRef is ready and isNavigating is false.
   ii. If both conditions are met, the promise resolves to true.
   iii. If not, it logs a message and the promise resolves to false.

3. Update all canNavigate usage to resolve promise before executing navigation.

Fixed Issues

$ #14258
PROPOSAL: #14258 (comment)

Tests

1. Open a chat in the app
2. Tap on the "+" icon
3. Select "Send money" or "Request money"
4. Tap on the currency displayed to change it
5. From the list of currencies, double-tap on the desired currency to select it.
6. Verify that user is taken to the previous screen with the selected currency

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

QA Steps

1. Open a chat in the app
2. Tap on the "+" icon
3. Select "Send money" or "Request money"
4. Tap on the currency displayed to change it
5. From the list of currencies, double-tap on the desired currency to select it.
6. Verify that user is taken to the previous screen with the selected currency

• 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
    • 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 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

Screen.Recording.2023-01-20.at.4.52.05.AM.-.Compressed.with.FlexClip.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

WhatsApp.Video.2023-01-19.at.11.47.19.PM.mp4

Mobile Web - Safari

mWebSafari.-.Compressed.with.FlexClip.mp4

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-01-24.at.7.02.18.PM.-.Compressed.with.FlexClip.mp4

iOS

IOS.-.Compressed.with.FlexClip.mp4

Android

WhatsApp.Video.2023-01-20.at.5.02.02.AM.-.Compressed.with.FlexClip.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@cristipaval 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]

[mountiny]

@syedsaroshfarrukhdot Friendly reminder to either:

• link the App issue correctly when you create the PR straight off
• first make draft, fill in all the details and once the PR body is ready, mark it ready for a review.

Then the correct people will be assigned for a review 🙌 Thank you 🙇

[syedsaroshfarrukhdot]

@syedsaroshfarrukhdot Friendly reminder to either:

• link the App issue correctly when you create the PR straight off
• first make draft, fill in all the details and once the PR body is ready, mark it ready for a review.
  Then the correct people will be assigned for a review 🙌 Thank you 🙇

Thank you for highlighting. It was my bad to not link issue correctly before making it as as draft. Will make sure next time this doesn't happen.

[mountiny]

Thank you for highlighting. It was my bad to not link issue correctly before making it as as draft. Will make sure next time this doesn't happen.

No problem at all! Thanks for taking this into consideration 🙇

[roryabraham]

At this point, src/libs/onScreenTransitionEnd.js and src/libs/onScreenTransitionStart.js seem pretty useless. Let's just get rid of them and use navigation.addListener directly.

[syedsaroshfarrukhdot]

At this point, src/libs/onScreenTransitionEnd.js and src/libs/onScreenTransitionStart.js seem pretty useless. Let's just get rid of them and use navigation.addListener directly.

@roryabraham Like the below snippet as I was using before right ? If Yes, I also agree it make more sense to us navigation.addListener directly. Are we going waiting to discuss this as this change was suggested by @eVoloshchak or should I make changes ?

this.unsubscribeTransitionStart = this.props.navigation.addListener('transitionStart', () => {}

this.unsubscribeTransitionEnd = this.props.navigation.addListener('transitionEnd', () => {}

[syedsaroshfarrukhdot]

Sorry for the delay on my part @syedsaroshfarrukhdot, unfortunately it looks like conflicts need to be resolved again.

@roryabraham Done, Conflicts Resolved In OptionRow.js

[roryabraham]

Overall I think this looks good, just had one comment left

[roryabraham]

LGTM, will let @eVoloshchak have another look before merging

[eVoloshchak]

There is something weird happening on web, but it's not related to this PR

Screen.Recording.2023-02-01.at.01.19.07.mov

Retested all of the platforms, works well

[eVoloshchak]

Thank you all for working on this one!
LGTM

[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 https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.2.64-0 🚀

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

[roryabraham]

This pull request caused a regression: #14787

In hindsight, the fix should have been something we caught in code review: #14791

Lesson for the future is that when migrating React.memo to shouldComponentUpdate:

• The params are different
• The boolean logic needs to be inverted (returning true in React.memo means don't re-render, but returning true in shouldComponentUpdate means do re-render)

[roryabraham]

This kind of thing is making me wish we could use hooks, because this change would've been much easier to make and review using hooks rather than converting to a class component.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.2.64-7 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.2.64-7 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.2.64-7 🚀

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

[parasharrajat]

I am confused with the use of InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions here. What is its purpose?

[parasharrajat]

Why do we need a promise here?

[roryabraham]

@parasharrajat Additional context can be found here and here. Hopefully that answers your questions.

[s77rt]

This PR caused a regression here #15963 due to missing some cases that should have been handled on shouldComponentUpdate.

[fedirjh]

This PR caused a regression: #16621 , the regression was caused by some missing cases that should have been handled on shouldComponentUpdate . In retrospect, the fix should have been caught during code review #16094.

[s77rt]

The callback is evaluated before the promise is resolved. This caused a regression (after we copied the logic). Please check #18122 (comment) for details.