[Internal QA] Test mobile deployment

[staszekscp]

Details

As far as I know it takes a lot of time for reviewers to build all the apps from PRs to make sure that everything works as expected. The purpose of this PR is to create a workflow that would build and publish apps (for now iOS and android) that could be easily downloaded and installed by reviewers. For now only Expensify mobile team members would be able to trigger this workflow by creating a PR to test if building and publishing apps works as expected.

Fixed Issues

$ GH_LINK
PROPOSAL: GH_LINK_ISSUE(COMMENT)

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

1. The PR has to be merged in order to test if it works correctly.
2. After merging one of members of the mobile-developers team should create a PR
3. The triggered Build and deploy... workflow should build android and iOS apps and publish them on a S3 bucket. After it's finished a comment with links for download should appear in the PR.
4. If you can download and install the app on android and iOS devices everything works fine (please, make sure your device was included into the ad-hoc iOS certificate)
5. IMPORTANT: The workflow can be triggered by external contributors' PRs, but the app should NOT be built and published. It should fail at the validateActor job and not reach action/checkout step.
6. If everything worked fine (if you prefer) you may revert the changes.

• 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:

  • 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 adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review 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

• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly

• 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 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.

• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

PR Reviewer Checklist

The reviewer will copy/paste it into a new comment and complete it after the author checklist is completed

• 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 expected offline behavior are in the Offline steps 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 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 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:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 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 adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review 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 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
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

[melvin-bot]

@arosiclair 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]

[staszekscp]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[arosiclair]

This seems like a proof-of-concept? Going to unassign since I don't have any context on this but holler if you need me

[mountiny]

@staszekscp Left one comment, thanks for the changes.

[luacmartins]

Just a few minor comments! Thanks for working on this!

[luacmartins]

LGTM!

[mountiny]

Thanks for addressing the changes

[luacmartins]

I think that we can merge this, but it will only be tested after the next deploy.

These have been addressed!

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @neil-marcellini (InternalQA), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/5042 for more details.

[luacmartins]

@neil-marcellini I'll QA this one since we need an App deployer.

[mountiny]

I think that we can merge this, but it will only be tested after the next deploy.

@luacmartins It can be QAed now, the workflows take effect when on main or not sure if I understand correctly

[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.

[luacmartins]

Workflow running here https://github.com/Expensify/App/actions/runs/3550376376

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.32-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.32-2 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.32-2 🚀

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

[AndrewGable]

@luacmartins @mountiny - I don't think we should be merging commented code, can we clean this up?

[staszekscp]

I've removed the commented out code in this PR: #13129

[AndrewGable]

Mentioned on a commit, but putting here:

I don't think we can remove this line, without it we do not have the nvm version in .nvmrc to use below. I think we've seen failures because of this.

cc @luacmartins @mountiny

Can we just change the workflow that was using this composite step instead of changing this instance?

[mountiny]

cc @staszekscp

[staszekscp]

I've made sure the checkout action is run always where setupNode appears. If you prefer I may revert this change in the next PR. I just though we'll have to use different refs and the checkout action is not strictly connected to the node setup so it would be better to extract it.

[AndrewGable]

Got it, that's fair!

[AndrewGable]

We can keep as is 👍