Add exception for default rooms beta for users who are members of a free policy

[yuwenmemon]

@TomatoToaster please review

Details

Add an exception to the default rooms beta - allows users who are members of a free policy to bypass the beta and see policy rooms, but still not see domain rooms.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/214193

Tests

1. change this line to return false

2. Log into an account on dev, create some Free Plan policy types. To do this go to the green plus on the bottom left and create a Workspace.

3. After it's created verify that after creating your workspace you see the default rooms for the workspace show up in the LHN: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4741899/173680577-10d77f0f-c3ff-4401-8ff7-01e86d42a281.mp4

4. Verify that you cannot find the domain room for your domain that you're logged into

5. Log in via another account that does not belong to a free plan policy (workspace), but belongs to other policies.

6. Verify that you cannot see any default rooms (policy or domain):

7. Change that original line back, log in via both accounts, Verify you should be able to see all rooms now (including the domain room)

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (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 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 included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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
• 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 */
  • Any functional components have the displayName property
  • 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
• 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(themeColors.componentBG)
• 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.

PR Reviewer Checklist

• 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 verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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 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 */
  • Any functional components have the displayName property
  • 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 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(themeColors.componentBG)
• 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.

QA Steps

1. Log into an account, create some Free Plan policy types. To do this go to the green plus on the bottom left and create a Workspace.
2. After it's created verify that after creating your workspace you see the default rooms for the workspace show up in the LHN: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4741899/173680577-10d77f0f-c3ff-4401-8ff7-01e86d42a281.mp4
3. Verify that you cannot find the domain room for your domain that you're logged into.
4. Log in via another account that does not belong to a free plan policy (workspace), but belongs to other policies.
5. Verify that you cannot see any default rooms (policy or domain.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

[aldo-expensify]

Suggested change

	policies: PropTypes.shape({
	/** The policy name */
	name: PropTypes.string,
	}).isRequired,
	policies: PropTypes.arrayOf(PropTypes.shape({
	/** The policy name */
	name: PropTypes.string,
	})).isRequired,

I think you have to wrap it in PropTypes.arrayOf because it is an array of object with that shape, right?

This is used later when calling PolicyUtils.isMemberOfFreePolicy(props.policies), which access policy.type. Should we add the type property in the described PropTypes.shape?

[yuwenmemon]

Interesting, I haven't seen this being used for the policy OnyxProp. A couple of examples:

yuwen@MemonbookProExpensify ~/Expensidev/App (yuwen-freePolicyDefaultRooms) App % git grep policies:                                  
src/components/ArchivedReportFooter.js:    policies: PropTypes.objectOf(PropTypes.shape({
src/components/ArchivedReportFooter.js:        policies: {
src/components/ReportWelcomeText.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/components/ReportWelcomeText.js:        policies: {
src/components/RoomNameInput.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/components/RoomNameInput.js:        policies: {
src/libs/Navigation/AppNavigator/MainDrawerNavigator.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/libs/Navigation/AppNavigator/MainDrawerNavigator.js:    policies: {
src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.js:        policies: {
src/pages/ReportSettingsPage.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/pages/ReportSettingsPage.js:        policies: {
src/pages/RequestCallPage.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/pages/RequestCallPage.js:        policies: {
src/pages/home/HeaderView.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/pages/home/HeaderView.js:        policies: {
src/pages/home/ReportScreen.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/pages/home/ReportScreen.js:    policies: {
src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemCreated.js:    policies: PropTypes.shape({
src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemCreated.js:    policies: {},
src/pages/home/report/ReportActionItemCreated.js:    policies: {
src/pages/settings/InitialSettingsPage.js:    policies: PropTypes.objectOf(PropTypes.shape({
src/pages/settings/InitialSettingsPage.js:    policies: {},
src/pages/settings/InitialSettingsPage.js:        policies: {
src/pages/workspace/WorkspaceNewRoomPage.js:        policies: {

[yuwenmemon]

And I didn't see any warns from React about the prop type either 🤷‍♂️

[aldo-expensify]

Yeah I noticed that we had it like that in other places, and it made me think that maybe PropTypes.shape could be equivalent to PropTypes.arrayOf(PropTypes.shape(...), but I didn't see anything like that in the documentation

Maybe we have some bug and the check for PropTypes is not working perfectly well?

Anyway, you may consider this as a NAB, but would be good to have a look later and see if our type checks are working as expected

[yuwenmemon]

I believe objectOf might be more appropriate:
If we look at the Policy action:

App/src/libs/actions/Policy.js

Lines 18 to 27 in 0ceb6a4

	Onyx.connect({
	key: ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY,
	callback: (val, key) => {
	if (!val || !key) {
	return;
	}
	allPolicies[key] = {...allPolicies[key], ...val};
	},
	});

... there is a val/key pairing

[aldo-expensify]

Suggested change

	policies: PropTypes.shape({
	/** The policy name */
	name: PropTypes.string,
	}).isRequired,
	policies: PropTypes.arrayOf(PropTypes.shape({
	/** The policy name */
	name: PropTypes.string,
	})).isRequired,

Same here

[yuwenmemon]

Updated!

[yuwenmemon]

Updated! Let's prioritize this as it was mentioned in the all-hands today 👍

[aldo-expensify]

LGTM!

[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.

[aldo-expensify]

I saw this warning about some of the new "required" props being undefined for a brief moment:

After trying to reproduce it more consistently, I feel it happens more often when your are logging into a freshly new account (use clitools to create it, and log in), but it still doesn't happen 100% of time... but it happens 75% of time scratch that, it happened often at first and now I haven't been able to reproduce again.

Other similar warnings:

None of these warnings cause the app to crash

Update: I think I found a way to reproduce it more consistently:

1. Have an account with workspaces (free policies)
2. Log out of New Dot
3. Login in Old dot
4. Go to Settings > Policies > Group Policies
5. Click your workspace so it takes you to New Dot
6. Check chrome console

[yuwenmemon]

Oh hmmm... so it comes from the OldDot -> NewDot workspace connection specifically?

[aldo-expensify]

Oh hmmm... so it comes from the OldDot -> NewDot workspace connection specifically?

Nop, it can happen by just logging in, but I saw it was easier to replicate if you do it with the transition. There is probably some race condition

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by @yuwenmemon in version: 1.1.78-0 🚀

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

[danielrvidal]

Just to confirm, this still isn't live right?

[aldo-expensify]

Just to confirm, this still isn't live right?

Nop, it is just in staging for now

[trjExpensify]

For additional context @danielrvidal, seems like Google have rejected our latest Android build and that's causing a hold up here. @francoisl has sent an appeal today, and we're waiting to hear back.

[JmillsExpensify]

Yeah agreed, we're getting real close. Let's just work through this remaining blocker.

[danielrvidal]

Where are we at on this one? Is it still failing?

[trjExpensify]

Thread is here to follow along. Latest is that they've rejected us again.

[JmillsExpensify]

Yes, that thread is great. Follow along in #deployer!

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by @sketchydroide in version: 1.1.78-8 🚀

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