Change modal border radius to 16px

[s77rt]

@Expensify/design

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #42716
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Verify that modals have a border radius of 16px

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

• 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: 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

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@rojiphil 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]

[shawnborton]

Can you show this screenshot here, but with the very first item in the menu (Start chat) in the :hover state?

We might need to add extra margin to the top/bottom of the list to accommodate for the larger border radius.

[rojiphil]

Can you show this screenshot here, but with the very first item in the menu (Start chat) in the :hover state?

@shawnborton Just checked. Looks like there is enough padding. Does this look fine?

[shawnborton]

Technically not quite - I think it should have the same about of vertical padding as the border radius value. So it should probably be bumped from 12px to 16px padding.

[dannymcclain]

So it should probably be bumped from 12px to 16px padding.

Sounds good to me!

[s77rt]

I have pushed the changes. There are 2 notes to cover:

1. The attachment modal is now using border radius of 16px however the "padding" is 15.5px. In that modal we render the header which uses a fixed height of 72px but it also has a border of 1px width, this leaves us with 71px. The close button takes 40px. Leaving us with 31px. Since the button is vertically centered the 31px is split in half and we get 15.5px as "padding". This is not perfect but is pretty minor and not worth optimizing for

2. The bottom docked modal uses a different border radius (20px). Is that expected?

[shawnborton]

Ah, so I am only suggesting that you change the top/bottom padding on popovers, not the full screen modals on desktop. Can you revert that part? We only want the increased padding on popover menus like this:

The bottom docked modal uses a different border radius (20px). Is that expected?

I guess it makes sense to use 16px radius here, to better match our system. Thoughts @Expensify/design?

[dannymcclain]

The bottom docked modal uses a different border radius (20px). Is that expected?

I guess it makes sense to use 16px radius here, to better match our system.

Yeah that would make sense, though it looks like we have a lot more border radius variables in code than we do in Figma:

    componentBorderRadius: 8,
    componentBorderRadiusSmall: 4,
    componentBorderRadiusMedium: 6,
    componentBorderRadiusNormal: 8,
    componentBorderRadiusLarge: 16,
    componentBorderRadiusXLarge: 28,
    componentBorderRadiusCard: 20,
    componentBorderRadiusRounded: 24,

So I suppose if it's using one of those variables it's not the end of the world. But it makes sense to give that the same border radius as all the other modals, so I'd be in favor of that change.

[shawnborton]

Nice, cleaning those up would be a good follow up project for sure.

[s77rt]

@shawnborton

Ah, so I am only suggesting that you change the top/bottom padding on popovers, not the full screen modals on desktop. Can you revert that part?

I didn't change the padding on the full screen modal. I have only changed the border radius. There is no real padding style, what I was referring to as "padding" is the remaining space, it was always 15.5px. Do I have to change anything here?

[shawnborton]

Ah, no. The only change there would be for the border radius of the outer shape of the modal.

[s77rt]

@shawnborton Regarding the bottom docked modal

I guess it makes sense to use 16px radius here, to better match our system

What about the padding? It's 12px now, should I bump this to 16px as well?

[shawnborton]

I think that makes sense, especially when the bottom-docked modal just has menu options in it.

[s77rt]

Updated

Before	After

[shawnborton]

Looks great to me.

[rojiphil]

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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

43267-web-safari-001.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

43267-desktop-001.mp4

Android: Native

43267-android-native-001.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

43627-mweb-chrome-001.mp4

iOS: Native

43267-ios-native-001.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

43267-mweb-safari-001.mp4

[rojiphil]

Thanks @s77rt. Changes LGTM. I have uploaded the test videos as part of checklist.

Leaving few NAB comments though which we may want to take up along with the changes here as part of the follow-up project.

1. We may want to use the variable componentBorderRadiusLarge here too.
2. Since the feature training modal would have a border radius of componentBorderRadiusLarge, I am wondering if the border-radius for onboarding video player here also can be componentBorderRadiusLarge instead of 12.
   Below is a screenshot of the same for reference.

cc @shawnborton

[dannymcclain]

@rojiphil I think we may want to leave that video player alone—I'll let @shawnborton weigh in too, but since we have a border radius on the modal and a border around the video, we need to visually compensate to make the two look like they share the same border radius.

[shawnborton]

For that onboarding modal, can you confirm that the border radius in question is the outer border radius of the entire modal, or the inner border radius of the video? I think what we have there is working fine though, so I would also opt to just leave it alone.

[rojiphil]

For that onboarding modal, can you confirm that the border radius in question is the outer border radius of the entire modal, or the inner border radius of the video? I think what we have there is working fine though, so I would also opt to just leave it alone.

That's the border radius of the video player as seen here and has nothing to do with the border radius of the entire modal. So leaving it alone seems to be the consensus here.

[jasperhuangg]

Code changes make sense to me, will leave it to @shawnborton to confirm that the style changes are as expected.

[shawnborton]

Going to run a test build now to make sure everything looks good.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/43627/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/43627/index.html
Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/43627/NewExpensify.dmg	https://43627.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[shawnborton]

Cool, going to merge this!

[shawnborton]

Why do we have this marked as NoQA though? This should be QA'd.

[shawnborton]

Going to change the PR title.

[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/shawnborton in version: 9.0.1-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.0.1-19 🚀

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