Move Workspace creation in the onboardingFlow to OnboardingPurpose page and skip Workspace creation for OD signups #53729

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-07T07:38:18Z

Explanation of Change

With the new BE changes, when a user signs up through OldDot and is redirected to NewDot, the backend now automatically creates a workspace for vsb and smb signup qualifiers.

In this PR, we skip the frontend workspace creation for these cases. We also move the workspace creation logic in the onboarding flow from the BaseOnboardingEmployees page to the BaseOnboardingPurpose page. Since BaseOnboardingPurpose is skipped for OD signups, this ensures no duplicate workspace is created.

Additionally, we added two conditions:
hasSignupQualifier && filteredPolicies.length === 0
These prevent edge cases where a workspace might be created twice.

Fixed Issues

$ #53326
PROPOSAL: #53326 (comment)

Tests

Test 1

Sign up through OD.
Select Manage expenses for a small team (1-9 employees) during signup.
After being redirected to ND
On the account page (Do you use any accounting software? page), select any option and click Continue.
Verify that the CreateWorkspace API is not called during the onboarding flow (since the workspace is now automatically created in the backend).
After completing the onboarding flow, confirm that one workspace is successfully created with the new backend changes merged.

Test 2

Sign up through ND.
On the onboarding purpose step, select Manage my team's expenses.
On the Employees page (How many employees do you have? page), select any option and click Continue.
On the Accounting page (Do you use any accounting software? page), select any option and click Continue.
Verify that the CreateWorkspace API is called during the onboarding flow
Verify that one workspace is created.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Internet connection required.

QA Steps

Test 1

Sign up through OD.
Select Manage expenses for a small team (1-9 employees) during signup.
After being redirected to ND
On the **Accounting page ** (Do you use any accounting software? page), select any option and click Continue.
Verify that the CreateWorkspace API is not called during the onboarding flow (since the workspace is now automatically created in the backend).
After completing the onboarding flow, confirm that one workspace is successfully created with the new backend changes merged.

Test 2

Sign up through ND.
On the onboarding purpose step, select Manage my team's expenses.
On the Employees page (How many employees do you have? page), select any option and click Continue.
On the Accounting page (Do you use any accounting software? page), select any option and click Continue.
Verify that the CreateWorkspace API is called during the onboarding flow
Verify that one workspace is created.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.native.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.chrome.mov

iOS: Native

ios.Native.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.safari.ND.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Signup through ND:

macos.20safari.20ND.mp4

Signup through OD:

macos.20safari.20OD.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.20Recording.202024-12-07.20at.209.mp4

…ingPurpose page

melvin-bot · 2024-12-07T07:38:23Z

@thesahindia 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]

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-10T01:12:36Z

@thesahindia this one is kinda urgent, in case you can prioritize it. Thank you! 🙏

thesahindia · 2024-12-10T17:06:01Z

Reviewing right now. I was having some issue on native. Even after fixing the issue it wasn't working. Had to restart the mac.

thesahindia · 2024-12-10T20:02:04Z

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 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.ts 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
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

Screen.Recording.2024-12-10.at.11.52.28.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-12-10.at.11.54.11.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-12-10.at.11.25.03.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-12-11.at.12.13.29.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-12-11.at.1.42.08.AM.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-12-11.at.1.44.53.AM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-12-11.at.1.51.10.AM.mov

thesahindia

LGTM!

marcaaron · 2024-12-12T23:27:05Z

src/pages/OnboardingPurpose/BaseOnboardingPurpose.tsx

+                        const {adminsChatReportID, policyID} = Policy.createWorkspace(undefined, true, '', generatePolicyID(), choice);
+                        Welcome.setOnboardingAdminsChatReportID(adminsChatReportID);
+                        Welcome.setOnboardingPolicyID(policyID);
+                    }


I'm confused about why we moved this here.

We moved the workspace creation logic here to BaseOnboardingPurpose because this page is only shown to users without VSB or SMB signup qualifiers. For users with VSB or SMB, this page is skipped, and the workspace creation won’t happen on the frontend.

I believe the workspace creation was temporarily moved to BaseOnboardingEmployees in your PR (#50759) until the backend changes are ready. Now that we’ve moved the logic to BaseOnboardingPurpose, the workspace will only be created for users without VSB or SMB signup qualifiers, which is what we need to avoid duplicates.

We have to fix this now because the FE needs will be merged first. Can you please return it to the correct spot?

marcaaron · 2024-12-12T23:46:37Z

the backend now automatically creates a workspace for vsb and smb signup qualifiers

Just for clarity, it does not do this yet. This PR will need to support the existing flow AND that change when it happens?

We also move the workspace creation logic in the onboarding flow from the BaseOnboardingEmployees page to the BaseOnboardingPurpose page. Since BaseOnboardingPurpose is skipped for OD signups, this ensures no duplicate workspace is created.

I think we have to unwind this part. Something needs the policyID IIRC (see this PR). And, yes, the BE PRs will eventually allow us to remove this check, but the plan was to deploy them after this PR is deployed.

So, App needs to exist in a state where it will maybe create a policy for now and then stop creating one after the backend creates one. At least, I thought that was the plan.

@carlosmiceli Let me know if I have this right or if I'm missing something...

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-13T00:11:13Z

@marcaaron agreed on everything but this line:

App needs to exist in a state where it will maybe create a policy for now and then stop creating one after the backend creates one.

I don't think we stated that a policy would get temporarily created (if you do, maybe you can point me to that comment/thread?). Instead it would get created or not in ND depending on the signupQualifier (and it would assume that the BE has created the policy successfully). A policy should be created even before the account, so it's all happening before the user even signs in.

marcaaron · 2024-12-13T00:21:29Z

Please add manual QA steps for the accounting page flow.

marcaaron · 2024-12-13T00:27:40Z

I don't think we stated that a policy would get temporarily created (if you do, maybe you can point me to that comment/thread?)

Instead it would get created or not in ND depending on the signupQualifier

The App code will support the current state of things (no signupQualifier passed or policy created) and then also support the backend code when it gets merged and deployed. Not sure what you mean by "policy would get temporarily created", but I did not use those words 😄

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-13T02:31:02Z

Ah, cool, I interpreted that from this sentence:

create a policy for now and then stop creating one after the backend creates one

But seems like we're on the same page now!

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-13T05:16:41Z

Hi @carlosmiceli and @marcaaron,
Based on the discussions so far from here #53326, we had assumed that the frontend changes in this PR would be merged simultaneously with the new backend changes. As a result, we completely skipped workspace creation for signups through OD in this PR.

However, from the discussions above, I understand that we may or may not create a workspace for OD signups in the frontend, depending on whether the backend has already created one. Therefore, we should still support workspace creation for OD signups on the frontend, and only skip it if the backend has already created a workspace for the user.

Did I understand this correctly? Thank you!

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-13T18:50:16Z

depending on whether the backend has already created one

This is not totally accurate. The onboarding flow shouldn't need to check for existing workspaces created, it just needs to create a workspace or not depending on the signupQualifier value. That's what should decide if we create or skip creating a workspace during onboarding. If the account was created, and the signupQualifier is either vsb or smb, the onboarding flow should assume a workspace was properly created.

Do we agree @marcaaron?

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-13T20:40:56Z

@marcaaron

Just for clarity, it does not do this yet. This PR will need to support the existing flow AND that change when it happens?

Yes, with this PR, we will still create a workspace for signups from ND that don’t have a signup qualifier, such as VSB or SMB.
If there is a signup qualifier, this PR will skip workspace creation since the backend will handle it.

I think we have to unwind this part. Something needs the policyID IIRC (see this PR). And, yes, the BE PRs will eventually allow us to remove this check, but the plan was to deploy them after this PR is deployed.

So, App needs to exist in a state where it will maybe create a policy for now and then stop creating one after the backend creates one. At least, I thought that was the plan.

We are still handling the policyID for ND signups here using Welcome.setOnboardingPolicyID(policyID). For signups with VSB and SMB, I believe the backend should return the policyID via the ONYXKEYS.ONBOARDING_POLICY_ID onyx key when the workspace is created for those signups with a signup qualifier.

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-13T20:43:02Z

depending on whether the backend has already created one

This is not totally accurate. The onboarding flow shouldn't need to check for existing workspaces created, it just needs to create a workspace or not depending on the signupQualifier value. That's what should decide if we create or skip creating a workspace during onboarding. If the account was created, and the signupQualifier is either vsb or smb, the onboarding flow should assume a workspace was properly created.

Do we agree @marcaaron?

@luacmartins
Great! In that case, we are doing exactly that in this PR.

luacmartins · 2024-12-13T21:45:39Z

@luacmartins
Great! In that case, we are doing exactly that in this PR.

Was this meant for @carlosmiceli?

marcaaron · 2024-12-14T03:22:35Z

We are still handling the policyID for ND signups here using Welcome.setOnboardingPolicyID(policyID). For signups with VSB and SMB, I believe the backend should return the policyID via the ONYXKEYS.ONBOARDING_POLICY_ID onyx key when the workspace is created for those signups with a signup qualifier.

Yes I agree with everything here. @carlosmiceli can address the policyID thing as the backend code has not be merged yet.

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-14T04:39:22Z

@luacmartins
Great! In that case, we are doing exactly that in this PR.

Was this meant for @carlosmiceli?

Apologies for the confusion, Yes, I meant to tag @carlosmiceli.

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-17T18:38:51Z

We realized that, since @Shahidullah-Muffakir makes a good point that we need to return the policyID, we should actually use that as a check to whether create a policy or not, instead of the signupQualifier. This simplifies the logic quite a bit. Can we implement that instead? I'll update the BE and let you know when it's merged. cc @thesahindia

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-18T04:28:58Z

@carlosmiceli Currently, we have both checks:
if (!onboardingPolicyID && !hasSignupQualifier && filteredPolicies.length === 0) {

I’ll update the PR to remove the hasSignupQualifier check and rely only on the onboardingPolicyID check. That should be sufficient, Thank you.

…pace creation

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-18T11:52:59Z

We realized that, since @Shahidullah-Muffakir makes a good point that we need to return the policyID, we should actually use that as a check to whether create a policy or not, instead of the signupQualifier. This simplifies the logic quite a bit. Can we implement that instead? I'll update the BE and let you know when it's merged. cc @thesahindia

@carlosmiceli @thesahindia I removed the signupQualifier check for workspace creation, Thanks.

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-18T18:21:26Z

@Shahidullah-Muffakir great stuff, is this PR ready for review then?

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-18T18:26:29Z

@carlosmiceli Yes, the PR is ready for review. Thank you!

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-18T18:34:52Z

Great, @thesahindia all yours!

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-18T22:10:14Z

@Shahidullah-Muffakir can you help me confirm that we can get the signupBusinessPolicy ID from the policy list sent with onyxData in OpenApp? I'm thinking that there's no point in adding a logic to check for onboarding policy ID during openApp given that it should only be used to avoid creating a policy while the onboarding hasn't been completed yet and for new users that are not coming from OD.

Since the user can't create a workspace until the onboarding is complete, there's no risk of having any other policy other than the personal and the signupBusinessPolicy in the list at this time.

Does this make sense? Am I missing something?

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-18T23:52:20Z

@carlosmiceli If I understand correctly, you’re suggesting that we don’t need the onboardingPolicyID in openApp to avoid creating duplicate workspaces for OD signups. That’s correct because the current page (BaseOnboardingPurpose) is entirely skipped for OD signups, so a workspace won’t be created in that flow.

We still need onboardingPolicyID for other parts of the app, such as in the completeOnboarding function used in the tasks created during onboarding:

App/src/libs/actions/Report.ts

Lines 3590 to 3597 in 13286be

    
           adminsRoomLink: `${environmentURL}/${ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID.getRoute(adminsChatReportID ?? '-1')}`, 
        
           workspaceCategoriesLink: `${environmentURL}/${ROUTES.WORKSPACE_CATEGORIES.getRoute(onboardingPolicyID ?? '-1')}`, 
        
           workspaceMembersLink: `${environmentURL}/${ROUTES.WORKSPACE_MEMBERS.getRoute(onboardingPolicyID ?? '-1')}`, 
        
           workspaceMoreFeaturesLink: `${environmentURL}/${ROUTES.WORKSPACE_MORE_FEATURES.getRoute(onboardingPolicyID ?? '-1')}`, 
        
           navatticURL: getNavatticURL(environment, engagementChoice), 
        
           integrationName, 
        
           workspaceAccountingLink: `${environmentURL}/${ROUTES.POLICY_ACCOUNTING.getRoute(onboardingPolicyID ?? '-1')}`, 
        
           workspaceSettingsLink: `${environmentURL}/${ROUTES.WORKSPACE_INITIAL.getRoute(onboardingPolicyID ?? '-1')}`,

I couldn’t find the signupBusinessPolicy in the OpenApp response. If you’re suggesting that for OD signups, OpenApp will eventually return the signupBusinessPolicy and we then set it in the frontend as onboardingPolicyID using Welcome.setOnboardingPolicyID(signupBusinessPolicy);, that approach should also work.

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-19T15:52:21Z

I couldn’t find the signupBusinessPolicy in the OpenApp response.

It's not being sent that way inside OnyxData yet, but it's currently being returned under the policy_ onyx collection (along with the personal policy) with OpenApp:

One of them should be type: "personal" and one should be type: "team" (the latter being the new one that we are creating when we create the account and that should decide if we should create one during onboarding or not). My thinking was that we could use this as a way to set onboardingPolicyID, what do you think?

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-19T19:04:52Z

@carlosmiceli I believe we can use that approach.

However, currently, I can only see the policy of type personal being returned in the OpenApp endpoint, and not one of type team. If I can test this and confirm the team type policy is returned, I’ll make the necessary changes to update onboardingPolicyID using it and push the updates.

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-19T19:15:50Z

Right, we'll need to wait for the BE to be merged, it's not yet. But I wanted to confirm that this approach will work, this was the only thing holding back the BE in case we needed to send something different with OpenApp. I'll let you know as soon as it's deployed!

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-19T21:56:25Z

@Shahidullah-Muffakir ok, we realize that the FE should be merged first or otherwise we risk creating duplicate workspaces. However, the plan remains as we decided on the previous messages (getting the onboarding policy from the policy list). Can you proceed with the plan (hardcode values to test that it works) and once this is merged we can proceed with merging/testing the BE?

Let's make sure to test that this flow still creates a workspace for all the other existing cases, it should only skip creating one if the team policy is present in OnyxData after signing up in OD.

Thanks for the patience and hard work!

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-19T22:22:04Z

@carlosmiceli Sure, I’ll update and test the changes, Thanks.

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-20T00:29:27Z

@carlosmiceli Added the changes to set onboardingPolicyID and onboardingAdminsChatReportID for OD signups based on the Policy returned from the BE.

carlosmiceli · 2024-12-20T00:33:12Z

Great! Is it ready for a review by @thesahindia ?

Shahidullah-Muffakir · 2024-12-20T00:35:52Z

Great! Is it ready for a review by @thesahindia ?

Yes.

thesahindia · 2024-12-20T06:56:20Z

Will review this in a few hours.

thesahindia

Looks good!

marcaaron · 2024-12-20T20:20:34Z

src/pages/OnboardingAccounting/BaseOnboardingAccounting.tsx

            return;
        }
-
-        const {adminsChatReportID, policyID} = Policy.createWorkspace(undefined, true, '', Policy.generatePolicyID(), CONST.ONBOARDING_CHOICES.MANAGE_TEAM);


If we were creating a policy here I'd assume that maybe we still need to create one until the BE changes are merged.

marcaaron · 2024-12-20T20:21:30Z

src/pages/OnboardingEmployees/BaseOnboardingEmployees.tsx

-                        const {adminsChatReportID, policyID} = Policy.createWorkspace(undefined, true, '', Policy.generatePolicyID(), CONST.ONBOARDING_CHOICES.MANAGE_TEAM);
-                        Welcome.setOnboardingAdminsChatReportID(adminsChatReportID);
-                        Welcome.setOnboardingPolicyID(policyID);
-                    }


Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we still need this to complete the accounting step.

Shahidullah-Muffakir added 2 commits December 7, 2024 12:52

Skip workspace creation for OD signups and move logic back to Onboard…

0f0c7a0

…ingPurpose page

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into fix/53326

b2fc453

Shahidullah-Muffakir requested a review from a team as a code owner December 7, 2024 07:38

melvin-bot bot requested a review from thesahindia December 7, 2024 07:38

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team December 7, 2024 07:38

fix eslint error

cf61eba

Shahidullah-Muffakir mentioned this pull request Dec 7, 2024

[$250] Improve/fix logic for creating a workspace during onboarding flow #53326

Open

carlosmiceli self-requested a review December 9, 2024 15:43

thesahindia approved these changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron requested changes Dec 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

carlosmiceli changed the title ~~Move Workspace creation in the onboardingFlow to OnboardingPurpose page and skip Workspace creation for OD signups~~ [HOLD Web-E #44243] Move Workspace creation in the onboardingFlow to OnboardingPurpose page and skip Workspace creation for OD signups Dec 16, 2024

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into fix/53326

afad8ee

Shahidullah-Muffakir added 2 commits December 18, 2024 16:45

Remove hasSignupQualifier check, rely on onboardingPolicyID for works…

cf21dc8

…pace creation

fix eslint issue

5170a99

Shahidullah-Muffakir added 3 commits December 20, 2024 05:33

Set onboarding policy and admin chat ID for OD signups

96a81cb

Merge branch 'main' of github.com:Expensify/App into fix/53326

76c2fb3

fix eslint

c21ef33

thesahindia approved these changes Dec 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron changed the title ~~[HOLD Web-E #44243] Move Workspace creation in the onboardingFlow to OnboardingPurpose page and skip Workspace creation for OD signups~~ Move Workspace creation in the onboardingFlow to OnboardingPurpose page and skip Workspace creation for OD signups Dec 20, 2024

marcaaron requested changes Dec 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron requested a review from thesahindia December 20, 2024 20:21

Move Workspace creation in the onboardingFlow to OnboardingPurpose page and skip Workspace creation for OD signups #53729

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Move Workspace creation in the onboardingFlow to OnboardingPurpose page and skip Workspace creation for OD signups #53729

Conversation

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 7, 2024 • edited Loading

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 7, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 10, 2024

thesahindia commented Dec 10, 2024 • edited Loading

thesahindia commented Dec 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

thesahindia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron Dec 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Shahidullah-Muffakir Dec 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron Dec 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron commented Dec 12, 2024 • edited Loading

carlosmiceli commented Dec 13, 2024 • edited Loading

marcaaron commented Dec 13, 2024

marcaaron commented Dec 13, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 13, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 13, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 13, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 13, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 13, 2024

luacmartins commented Dec 13, 2024

marcaaron commented Dec 14, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 14, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 17, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 18, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 18, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 18, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 18, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 18, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 18, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 18, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 19, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 19, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 19, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 19, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 19, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 20, 2024

carlosmiceli commented Dec 20, 2024

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 20, 2024

thesahindia commented Dec 20, 2024

thesahindia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron Dec 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron Dec 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Shahidullah-Muffakir commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

thesahindia commented Dec 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

thesahindia commented Dec 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcaaron commented Dec 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

carlosmiceli commented Dec 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading