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

Removed the hasText condition from getIconWidthAndHeightStyle utils #51775

Conversation

jayeshmangwani
Copy link
Contributor

@jayeshmangwani jayeshmangwani commented Oct 31, 2024

Explanation of Change

Removed the hasText condition from getIconWidthAndHeightStyle to ensure icon-only buttons use the same icon size as regular buttons.

Fixed Issues

$ #51355
PROPOSAL: #51355 (comment)

Tests

  1. Navigate to Settings -> Profile -> Edit Photo.
  2. Select Upload Photo and choose any image.
  3. Confirm that the "Rotate" icon at the bottom has the following dimensions:
  • Background: 40x40

  • Icon: 16x16

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests

QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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 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

Screenshot_2024-11-01-17-56-04-90_40d2c9e2d8fb5b5aba3904834590021e

Android: mWeb Chrome Screenshot 2024-11-01 at 17 37 20
iOS: Native

Simulator Screenshot - iPhone SE (3rd generation) - 2024-11-01 at 17 43 53
Simulator Screenshot - iPhone SE (3rd generation) - 2024-11-01 at 17 44 07
Simulator Screenshot - iPhone SE (3rd generation) - 2024-11-01 at 17 44 11

iOS: mWeb Safari

Simulator Screenshot - iPhone SE (3rd generation) - 2024-11-01 at 17 33 42

MacOS: Chrome / Safari Screenshot 2024-11-01 at 17 30 41 Screenshot 2024-11-01 at 17 31 08
MacOS: Desktop Screenshot 2024-11-01 at 17 46 41 Screenshot 2024-11-01 at 17 46 59 Screenshot 2024-11-01 at 17 47 09

@jayeshmangwani jayeshmangwani marked this pull request as ready for review November 1, 2024 12:30
@jayeshmangwani jayeshmangwani requested review from a team as code owners November 1, 2024 12:30
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from rojiphil and removed request for a team November 1, 2024 12:30
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 1, 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]

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Screenshots look good to me from a design perspective 👍

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

rojiphil commented Nov 3, 2024

@jayeshmangwani Thanks for the PR. Our changes adversely impact the icons in the context menu and I think we need a fix. In particular, please observe the Reply in thread and Mark as unread button icons which are smaller now. Here is a test video demonstrating the same.

51775-issue-001.mp4

@jayeshmangwani
Copy link
Contributor Author

Great catch @rojiphil ! It looks like we intentionally added the small button size here.

{({hovered, pressed}) => (
<Icon
small
src={itemIcon}

We need to remove the small button type from here to match the existing sizing as the staging version and instead need to pass height and width value as iconSizeSmall(16).

@shawnborton @dannymcclain What are your thoughts? Should we match the exact sizing from the staging version here, or stick with the small button size for these two buttons?

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Personally I don't think we should touch the icon size in the mini menu/context menu that shows here:
CleanShot 2024-11-04 at 08 50 44@2x

Those feel like unique and different UI elements, or at least they are for the time being. So I would just make sure to keep them exactly as-is.

cc @Expensify/design for a gut check too.

@dubielzyk-expensify
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed with that Shawn

@dannymcclain
Copy link
Contributor

I agree with Shawn and Jon. (Also, those teeny tiny icons are hilarious 😂)

@jayeshmangwani
Copy link
Contributor Author

Cool, Updated the icon size to match the current production version.

@jayeshmangwani
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rojiphil since we're using the small button(Icon only) in several places, I'll start by comparing those icons with the prod version before moving forward.

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

rojiphil commented Nov 5, 2024

@rojiphil since we're using the small button(Icon only) in several places, I'll start by comparing those icons with the prod version before moving forward.

Not sure if there are any but I think we also need to check for icon only cases where medium or large are passed as that would also turn out to be incorrect.

@jayeshmangwani
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rojiphil , I’ve reviewed all instances where we use the small, medium, or large props for the Icon component, and they appear in about 15 files.

In my opinion, we have two options:

  1. Introduce a New Prop: We could add a new prop to the Icon component (e.g., fromButton) and that will be true only if we use Icon from Button Component. If fromButton is set to true, we adjust the width and height accordingly small = iconSizeExtraSmall, medium = iconSizeSmall and large = iconSizeNormal. Otherwise, all icons will retain their current width and height as in the production small = iconSizeSmall, medium = iconSizeNormal and large = iconSizeLarge.

  2. Manual Adjustments: We could manually apply the height and width in these files for Icon and remove the small, medium, or large props usage for these altogether.

Let me know what you think!

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

rojiphil commented Nov 5, 2024

  1. Introduce a New Prop: We could add a new prop to the Icon component (e.g., fromButton) and that will be true only if we use Icon from Button Component.

@jayeshmangwani I like the new prop idea as that would be neater. Also, isButtonIcon may sound better for the property name.

@jayeshmangwani
Copy link
Contributor Author

Great, @rojiphil, I’ve pushed the change.

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

rojiphil commented Nov 7, 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari
51775-web-safari-002.mp4
Android: Native
51775-android-native-001.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
51775-mweb-safari-002.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
51775-mweb-chrome-001.mp4
iOS: Native
51775-ios-native-001.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
51775-deskstop-001.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.

@jayeshmangwani Thanks for merging with the latest main.

@mjasikowski Changes LGTM and works well too.
All yours for review. Thanks.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from mjasikowski November 7, 2024 08:48
@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Screenshots look good to me.

@mjasikowski
Copy link
Contributor

@jayeshmangwani @rojiphil all good, merging

@mjasikowski mjasikowski merged commit 633c99c into Expensify:main Nov 7, 2024
17 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Nov 7, 2024

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mjasikowski in version: 9.0.59-0 🚀

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.0.59-3 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄 skipped 🚫
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄 skipped 🚫

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.

7 participants