Fix 25% opacity in MoneyRequestView and TaskView #27830

ginsuma · 2023-09-20T07:10:13Z

Details

MoneyRequestView and TaskView content are wrapped by twoOfflineWithFeedback. When requesting money or creating a task offline, its content has 25% opacity rather than 50% opacity.

Fixed Issues

$ #26235
PROPOSAL: #26235 (comment)

Tests

Scenario 1:

Be offline.
Requesting money.
Open the IOU details page.
Verify that the grayness is as usual (50%).
Be online.
Verify that there is no grayness in the content.
Be offline.
Update Amount, Description, Date, Merchant.
Verify that the grayness is as usual (50%).
Be online.
Verify that there is no grayness in the content.

Scenario 2:

Be offline.
Creating a task.
Open the task details page.
Verify that the grayness is as usual (50%).
Be online.
Verify that there is no grayness in the content.
Be offline.
Update Title, Description.
Verify that the grayness is as usual (50%).
Be online.
Verify that there is no grayness in the content.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.6.14.13.PM.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.6.46.05.PM.mp4

Mobile Web - Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.7.57.20.PM.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.7.35.18.PM.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.7.00.36.PM.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.7.02.39.PM.mp4

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.6.26.23.PM.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.6.48.44.PM.mp4

iOS

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.7.08.53.PM.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.7.12.41.PM.mp4

Android

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.7.05.19.PM.mp4

Screen.Recording.2023-09-21.at.8.02.49.PM.mp4

melvin-bot · 2023-09-20T07:10:18Z

@cubuspl42 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]

cubuspl42 · 2023-09-20T08:45:25Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

-                        enablePreviewModal
-                    />
-                </View>
+                <OfflineWithFeedback pendingAction={lodashGet(transaction, 'pendingAction')}>


Maybe we can introduce...

const pendingAction = lodashGet(transaction, 'pendingAction'); const getPendingFieldAction(fieldPath) => lodashGet(transaction, fieldPath) || pendingAction;

...as right now we're contributing to the duplication in this file. What do you think?

I updated it. Thanks!

cubuspl42 · 2023-09-20T08:53:02Z

src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItem.js

@@ -538,12 +536,10 @@ function ReportActionItem(props) {
            }

            return (
-                <OfflineWithFeedback pendingAction={props.action.pendingAction}>


Are you 100% confident that this is the same case? In the case of MoneyRequestView, you observed that the removed pending action props.action.pendingAction is equivalent to the existing conditions || lodashGet(transaction, 'pendingAction')}. I cannot see such a pattern in the case of TaskView.

I agree that it's great to fix another code fragment if it has an issue with the same root cause, but we're also responsible for all potential regressions we introduce.

Yes, we can see the report.pendingFields and action.pendingAction both having CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD value when creating a task.

App/src/components/ReportActionItem/TaskView.js

Line 79 in 52dc94d

<OfflineWithFeedback pendingAction={lodashGet(props, 'report.pendingFields.reportName')}>

App/src/libs/actions/Task.js

Lines 94 to 99 in 52dc94d

pendingFields: {

createChat: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,

reportName: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,

description: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,

managerID: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,

},

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.js

Line 2388 in 52dc94d

pendingAction: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,

Is it different from how it works in case of IOU actions?

What I'm trying to figure out is why the pattern of checking for pendingActions is different in TaskView and MoneyRequestView, i.e. that in MoneyRequestView we always check for either the outer pending action or for the field-level pending action, and in TaskView we only check for the field-level pending actions.

I also see the different patterns between them. When creating,
in TaskView, we have pendingFields in the optimistic data. But in MoneyRequestView, we only have them when we update the fields. That's why we need to check || lodashGet(transaction, 'pendingAction') for add pending.

Both IOU and Task actions have a similar set of operations, so I can't see a reason for these patterns to differ. But maybe we're exceeding the scope of this issue now...

Still, I think that if we're aware of these possible different combinations of pending actions (field-level vs the outer pending action), we should cover them in tests. Would you be able to describe the tests which ensure that the discussed || alternative works as expected after the PR changes?

And, if possible, tests that affect tasks fields separately, demonstrating that such an alternative check is not needed, and we didn't break anything by removing the outer OfflineWithFeedback wrapper for tasks.

Tests

Scenario 1:

Be offline.

Requesting money.

Open the IOU details page.

Verify that the grayness is as usual (50%).

Be online.

Verify that there is no grayness in the content.

Be offline.

Update Amount, Description, Date, Merchant.

Verify that the grayness is as usual (50%).

Be online.

Verify that there is no grayness in the content.

Scenario 2:

Be offline.

Creating a task.

Open the task details page.

Verify that the grayness is as usual (50%).

Be online.

Verify that there is no grayness in the content.

Be offline.

Update Title, Description.

Verify that the grayness is as usual (50%).

Be online.

Verify that there is no grayness in the content.

What do you think about it?

Looks fine 👍

I updated the steps and videos.

cubuspl42 · 2023-09-21T08:36:22Z

Please merge main

cubuspl42 · 2023-09-21T10:44:33Z

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

Screenshots/Videos

Web

gray-opacity-web.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

gray-opacity-android-web-compressed.mp4

Mobile Web - Safari

gray-opacity-ios-web.mp4

Desktop

iOS

gray-opacity-ios.mp4

Android

gray-opacity-android-compressed.mp4

stitesExpensify

LGTM

OSBotify · 2023-09-26T05:44:38Z

✋ 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 · 2023-09-28T19:19:49Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stitesExpensify in version: 1.3.75-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-10-02T17:23:44Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.75-12 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-10-02T17:52:22Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/stitesExpensify in version: 1.3.76-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-10-03T15:53:19Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.76-6 🚀

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

jayeshmangwani · 2024-11-19T10:28:46Z

src/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.js

-                        enablePreviewModal
-                    />
-                </View>
+                <OfflineWithFeedback pendingAction={pendingAction}>


Passing the pendingAction value directly as pendingAction to ReportActionItemImage causes the opacity to reduce to 0.25 when parentReportAction.pendingAction is set to 'add'.

Instead, we should pass the specific keys for pendingAction—pendingAction.waypoints and waypoints.receipt.

More context can be found in the selected proposal: #52123 (comment)

Fix different grayness in MoneyRequestView and TaskView

1433235

ginsuma requested a review from a team as a code owner September 20, 2023 07:10

melvin-bot bot requested review from cubuspl42 and removed request for a team September 20, 2023 07:10

ginsuma mentioned this pull request Sep 20, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-10-09] [$500] IOU - Content in IOU thread and details page has different shade of gray when created offline #26235

Closed

6 tasks

cubuspl42 reviewed Sep 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

Clean code

6f2fbfc

cubuspl42 approved these changes Sep 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from stitesExpensify September 21, 2023 10:45

stitesExpensify approved these changes Sep 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

stitesExpensify merged commit a32e668 into Expensify:main Sep 26, 2023

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Sep 28, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-09-28 #28412

Closed

lanitochka17 mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2023

[$500] IOU - Crash when editing the description of an IOU that was initially created with a description #28464

Closed

6 tasks

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Oct 2, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-10-02 #28635

Closed

jayeshmangwani reviewed Nov 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

jayeshmangwani mentioned this pull request Nov 19, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-11-20] [$250] Distance-Distance receipt placeholder icon is hardly visible when expense is submitted offline #52123

Closed

8 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix 25% opacity in MoneyRequestView and TaskView #27830

Fix 25% opacity in MoneyRequestView and TaskView #27830

ginsuma commented Sep 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 20, 2023

cubuspl42 Sep 20, 2023

ginsuma Sep 20, 2023

cubuspl42 Sep 20, 2023

ginsuma Sep 20, 2023

cubuspl42 Sep 20, 2023

ginsuma Sep 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading

cubuspl42 Sep 20, 2023

cubuspl42 Sep 20, 2023

ginsuma Sep 20, 2023

cubuspl42 Sep 21, 2023

ginsuma Sep 21, 2023

cubuspl42 commented Sep 21, 2023

cubuspl42 commented Sep 21, 2023

stitesExpensify left a comment

OSBotify commented Sep 26, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 28, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 2, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 2, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 3, 2023

jayeshmangwani Nov 19, 2024

	pendingFields: {
	createChat: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,
	reportName: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,
	description: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,
	managerID: CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD,
	},

Fix 25% opacity in MoneyRequestView and TaskView #27830

Fix 25% opacity in MoneyRequestView and TaskView #27830

Conversation

ginsuma commented Sep 20, 2023 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Sep 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ginsuma Sep 20, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Tests

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cubuspl42 commented Sep 21, 2023

cubuspl42 commented Sep 21, 2023

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

stitesExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Sep 26, 2023

OSBotify commented Sep 28, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 2, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 2, 2023

OSBotify commented Oct 3, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ginsuma commented Sep 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading

ginsuma Sep 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading