Skip to content
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

Create generic network layer logic for conflicting write requests #39024

Merged
merged 35 commits into from
Mar 28, 2024

Conversation

roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham commented Mar 26, 2024

Details

Currently we have a problem where:

  • an action with pendingAction: delete is added to a report
  • because of the existing request resolution, the DeleteComment API request is never executed, so the optimistic pendingAction is never cleaned up
  • this breaks comment linking and results in an infinite loop of GetOlderActions

Fixed Issues

$ #39028

Tests / QA Steps

  1. Open a report
  2. Go offline
  3. (web) make sure you have the network tab of the chrome dev tools open. clear it out before doing the next steps...
  4. Navigate away from the report, then back to it
  5. Send a message
  6. Delete the message you just sent
  7. Go back online
  8. Verify that:
    1. The message you sent and deleted offline is gone
    2. The skeleton indicator should not appear indefinitely on the report
    3. You do not see an infinite loop of GetOlderAction requests in the network tab
    4. You do not see an AddComment or DeleteComment request
    5. You see only one OpenReport call
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

same as tests.

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: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb 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 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
      • 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 grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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 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(theme.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 the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

created this as a more generic follow-up for #38609. cc @rlinoz @OlimpiaZurek @allroundexperts. Hoping to get this done and merged tomorrow. We were discussing this in slack starting here.

Remaining tasks here are:

  • add back logic specific to addComment and deleteComment in Report.addComment and/or Report.deleteReportComment
  • ideally add some automated tests
  • I think this is a more generalized / powerful replacement for the idempotencyKey we already have. So maybe we can remove the idempotencyKey so we don't have two similar mechanisms to achieve the same / similar end goals

@roryabraham roryabraham self-assigned this Mar 28, 2024
@roryabraham roryabraham changed the title [WIP] Create generic network layer logic for conflicting write requests Create generic network layer logic for conflicting write requests Mar 28, 2024
@roryabraham roryabraham marked this pull request as ready for review March 28, 2024 06:47
@roryabraham roryabraham requested a review from rlinoz March 28, 2024 14:28
@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

@shubham1206agra this won't do anything to clean up any reports that are already borked with old optimistic reportActions that were never cleaned up before. Can you try signing out and back in then retesting?

@shubham1206agra
Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham Still not working :( But maybe BE registered the wrong ActionID. Not sure though.

@shubham1206agra
Copy link
Contributor

shubham1206agra commented Mar 28, 2024

Screen.Recording.2024-03-28.at.8.10.13.PM.mov

BUG: The comment inside thread is not registering correctly on comment made offline if I delete the parent comment
cc @roryabraham

@roryabraham roryabraham changed the title [WIP] Create generic network layer logic for conflicting write requests Create generic network layer logic for conflicting write requests Mar 28, 2024
@rlinoz
Copy link
Contributor

rlinoz commented Mar 28, 2024

Hmm adding a comment after adding and deleting a comment offline hides all previous reportActions

Screen.Recording.2024-03-28.at.11.44.51.mov

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

roryabraham commented Mar 28, 2024

just catching up here - thanks for the reports and I'll investigate further. Just to be clear, did you confirm that these bugs aren't reproducible on main? I saw a couple instances on staging where the chat list "goes blank", but I'm not sure about the reproduction steps there. I'm not sure how that could be caused by these changes.

# Conflicts:
#	src/libs/API/parameters/OpenReportParams.ts
@rlinoz
Copy link
Contributor

rlinoz commented Mar 28, 2024

I didn't, let me try main

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

roryabraham commented Mar 28, 2024

The comment inside thread is not registering correctly on comment made offline if I delete the parent comment

@shubham1206agra I'm not able to reproduce this one:

web.mov

edit: Actually I am seeing this not working correctly - if I try to access the thread after refreshing I get a not found page. and I understand why. I'll post a fix for this

@rlinoz
Copy link
Contributor

rlinoz commented Mar 28, 2024

So, it is happening something similar in main, but if I comment out the previous reconcileRequests(persistedRequests, commands); it works normally, so it is still probably related

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

after my last commit the error in child threads is not happening but the deleted message is disappearing rather than showing [Deleted Message] at the root. This appears to be a bug from the back-end incorrectly setting isDeletedParentAction: false:

image

@yuwenmemon
Copy link
Contributor

yuwenmemon commented Mar 28, 2024

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: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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(theme.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 the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • 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

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

@yuwenmemon
Copy link
Contributor

As discussed here, we're aware of a single bug flow still unresolved by this PR, but will not block on that one and instead create a follow-up issue.

@yuwenmemon yuwenmemon merged commit 3f3869a into main Mar 28, 2024
15 checks passed
@yuwenmemon yuwenmemon deleted the Rory-GenericConflictingRequests branch March 28, 2024 22:51
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

✋ 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 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
Create generic network layer logic for conflicting write requests

(cherry picked from commit 3f3869a)
yuwenmemon added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
…ng-39024-1

🍒 Cherry pick PR #39024 to staging 🍒
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants