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

Delete all linked report when clearing optimistic chat and transaction error #44923

Merged

Conversation

bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor

Details

Clearing transaction error doesn't delete the report. This PR fix it by deleting all linked report of the transaction and its chat report.

Fixed Issues

$ #43481
PROPOSAL: #43481 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

  1. Go offline
  2. Submit an expense to a new user
  3. From another device, send a message to the user from step 2
  4. Back to the main device, go online. The chat report of the new user will have a RBR.
  5. Open the chat report and press the money request preview
  6. Clears the error message
  7. Verify you are navigated to concierge chat
  8. (small screen) Go back and verify you land on LHN
  9. Verify the chat and transaction report is gone from LHN
  • 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.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
android.mweb.mp4
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios.mweb.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web_error.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
desktop_error.mp4

@bernhardoj bernhardoj requested a review from a team as a code owner July 5, 2024 15:54
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team July 5, 2024 15:54
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 5, 2024

@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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from rojiphil July 5, 2024 15:54
@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Having a problem with iOS native, really lagging.

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

Reviewing today. @bernhardoj Meanwhile, can you please fix the lint error?

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed.

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Whoops, another lint.

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Everything should be fixed now

Copy link
Contributor

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@bernhardoj I noticed a following error during testing (i.e. while clearing the errors) but I only got that once. And I am not sure what exactly caused this. Looking strictly from the code perspective, I think we can keep regressions at bay if we do an early return as mentioned in my review comment. Please have a look. Overall the code LGTM though.

Screenshot 2024-07-10 at 7 55 20 PM

Object.values(transaction?.errors ?? {})?.find((error) => ErrorUtils.isReceiptError(error))
) {
deleteTransaction(parentReport, parentReportAction);
if (transaction.pendingAction === CONST.RED_BRICK_ROAD_PENDING_ACTION.ADD) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let us do an early return here to keep possible regressions at bay. Also, I think doing any further steps does not make sense when the chat report and all related reports are deleted. Something like this can be done within the if condition here. What do you think?

if (ReportUtils.getAddWorkspaceRoomOrChatReportErrors(chatReportID)) {
   Report.navigateToConciergeChatAndDeleteReport(chatReportID, true);
   return;
}
if (Object.values(transaction?.errors ?? {})?.find((error) => ErrorUtils.isReceiptError(error))) {
   deleteTransaction(parentReport, parentReportAction);
}

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes sense, updated!

@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ function getAllReportTransactions(reportID?: string, transactions?: OnyxCollecti
// `reportID` from the `/CreateDistanceRequest` endpoint return's number instead of string for created `transaction`.
// For reference, https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/26536#issuecomment-1703573277.
// We will update this in a follow-up Issue. According to this comment: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/26536#issuecomment-1703591019.
const nonNullableTransactions: Transaction[] = Object.values(transactions ?? allTransactions ?? {}).filter((transaction): transaction is Transaction => transaction !== null);
const nonNullableTransactions = Object.values(transactions ?? allTransactions ?? {}).filter(transaction => !!transaction);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As for the error, we don't filter out undefined values here, which caused the crash, so I update it to include that here too.

Copy link
Contributor

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @bernhardoj for the changes. LGTM and works well too.
@arosiclair Over to you for review.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from arosiclair July 12, 2024 09:55
@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

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
44293-web-safari-004.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
44923-desktop-004.mp4
Android: Native
44923-android-native-004.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
44923-mweb-chrome-004.mp4
iOS: Native
44923-ios-native-004.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
44923-mweb-safari-004.mp4

Copy link
Contributor

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated checklist

@@ -6113,7 +6113,8 @@ function isValidReportIDFromPath(reportIDFromPath: string): boolean {
/**
* Return the errors we have when creating a chat or a workspace room
*/
function getAddWorkspaceRoomOrChatReportErrors(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): Errors | null | undefined {
function getAddWorkspaceRoomOrChatReportErrors(reportOrID: OnyxEntry<Report> | string): Errors | null | undefined {
const report = typeof reportOrID === 'string' ? ReportConnection.getAllReports()?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${reportOrID}`] : reportOrID;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We shouldn't fetch the report in the lib here if we don't need to. Can we just get the report in the MoneyRequestView with useOnyx and pass it in?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

if (!reportAction.childReportID) {
return;
}
deleteReport(reportAction.childReportID);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should probably not always delete child reports. Can we put this behind a shouldDeleteChildReports flag?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

@bernhardoj The recent changes seem not to work as the navigation to concierge chat fails. Please have a look at the test video below.

44923-web-safari-i-1.mp4

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

It works fine for me even though it redirects to the concierge chat instead of the concierge chat itself, but that's another bug of navigateToConciergeChat.

web.1.mp4

Copy link
Contributor

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did a clean build and did not notice the problem as observed here. We can ignore that.
I also observed the behavior as mentioned here with navigation to concierge chat (as shown in the video below for mweb). Seems intentional but not sure. Anyway, that is a matter of another discussion.
Meanwhile, the code changes LGTM and tests well too.

44923-mweb-safari-i-2.mp4
44923-web-safari-i-2.mp4

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from arosiclair July 14, 2024 14:07
@arosiclair arosiclair merged commit 5710b69 into Expensify:main Jul 15, 2024
15 checks passed
@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
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 9.0.7-3 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.0.7-4 🚀

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

@Expensify/applauseleads please QA this PR and check it off on the deploy checklist if it passes.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.0.7-8 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.8-6 🚀

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

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.

4 participants