[Form Refactor] ACHContractStep

[grgia]

Details

Form Refactor for ACH Contract Step of Add Bank Account Form.

Fixed Issues

$ #9578

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
• Follow this SO to add a bank account
• Until testing submission flows, replace this block with a console statement like this to prevent having to go through the entire bank add flow each test.
• Follow QA Steps

        // eslint-disable-next-line no-console
        console.log({
            ownsMoreThan25Percent: values.ownsMoreThan25Percent,
            hasOtherBeneficialOwners: values.hasOtherBeneficialOwners,
            acceptTermsAndConditions: values.acceptTermsAndConditions,
            certifyTrueInformation: values.certifyTrueInformation,
            beneficialOwners: JSON.stringify(beneficialOwners),
            bankAccountID,
        });

Offline tests

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

QA Required Validation:

Click submit without checking any boxes

Click submit checking only "I accept the terms and conditions"

Click submit checking only " I certify that ..."

Check both boxes, ensure no error messages shown

QA Beneficial Owners / Identity Form Flow:

Check "Someone else owns more than 25%..." > Ensure that IdentityForm is created

Check "Someone else owns more than 25%..." > Click "Add another individual who owns more than 25% of Alberta Bobbeth Charleson" > Continue clicking that until you cannot add more forms. > Ensure that only 4 forms are created

Check "Someone else owns more than 25%..." AND "I own more than 25%" > Click "Add another individual who owns more than 25% of Alberta Bobbeth Charleson" > Continue clicking that until you cannot add more forms. > Ensure that only 3 forms are created

QA Identity Form Validation

Check both required checks AND "Someone else owns more than 25%..." > Fill out 1 Identify Form correctly > then 1 by 1 remove or incorrectly fill out each field (first name, last name, dob, ssn, address, city, state, zipcode) > Ensure form does not submit

Check both required checks AND "Someone else owns more than 25%..." > Fill out DOB such that the age is <18, and ensure an error is shown

QA Form Submissions

Check both required boxes > click submit > ensure bank account is successfully connected with no beneficial owners

Check both required checks AND "Someone else owns more than 25%..." > Fill out 1 Identify Form correctly > Ensure form submits with no error and data is correct.

Check both required checks AND "Someone else owns more than 25%..." > Fill out 1 Identify Form correctly then delete it > add another identity form and fill it out correctly > Ensure form submits with no error and data is correct.

Check both required checks AND "Someone else owns more than 25%..." > add 3 identity forms and fill 2 out correctly and 1 incorrectly > Remove the incorrect form > Ensure form submits with no error and data is correct.

Check all checkmarks > Fill out multiple Identify Forms correctly > Ensure form submits with no error and data is correct.

Check all four boxes > Fill out 1 Identify Form correctly > Ensure form submits with no error and data is correct.

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

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Screen.Recording.2022-12-16.at.2.20.21.PM.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Screen.Recording.2022-12-16.at.2.24.29.PM.mov

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2022-12-16.at.2.53.45.PM.mov

iOS

Screen.Recording.2022-12-16.at.2.25.41.PM.mov

Android

Screen.Recording.2022-12-16.at.2.27.01.PM.mov

[luacmartins]

Leaving a quick review. I still need to dig deeper into the dynamic nature of this form, we'll likely have to make changes to the Form component itself to accommodate these scenarios. I'll try to get to it this afternoon.

[luacmartins]

These keys should be dynamic

[luacmartins]

I'll look into a solution for these since we might need to make changes to the Form component itself

[luacmartins]

@grgia I took a look at dynamically adding/removing IdentityForm and the solution below should work:

1. Store beneficialOwners in local state like we do now. However, we'll only store an ID for the IdentityForm instead of the full form input keys. No need to change anything here, we'll do so in the other methods that use state.
2. Update addBeneficialOwner to store this ID in beneficialOwners and set the Form draft values accordingly. Something like:

addBeneficialOwner() {
    this.setState((prevState) => {
        const beneficialOwners = [...prevState.beneficialOwners, NumberUtils.rand64()];

        // We set 'beneficialOwners' to null first because we don't have a way yet to replace a specific property without merging it.
        // We don't use the debounced function because we want to make both function calls.
        FormActions.setDraftValues(ONYXKEYS.REIMBURSEMENT_ACCOUNT, {beneficialOwners: null});
        FormActions.setDraftValues(ONYXKEYS.REIMBURSEMENT_ACCOUNT, {beneficialOwners});

        return {beneficialOwners};
    });
}

3. Update removeBeneficialOwner to take the ID of the IdentityForm we are removing and update the Form draft accordingly. Like so:

removeBeneficialOwner(beneficialOwner) {
    this.setState((prevState) => {
        const beneficialOwners = _.without(prevState.beneficialOwners, beneficialOwner);

        // We set 'beneficialOwners' to null first because we don't have a way yet to replace a specific property without merging it.
        // We don't use the debounced function because we want to make both function calls.
        FormActions.setDraftValues(ONYXKEYS.REIMBURSEMENT_ACCOUNT, {beneficialOwners: null});
        FormActions.setDraftValues(ONYXKEYS.REIMBURSEMENT_ACCOUNT, {beneficialOwners});

        return {beneficialOwners};
    });
}

4. In the render method, map over the beneficialOwners state, which now stores IDs, and pass a key in the format beneficialOwner.${id}.firstName to both defaultValues and inputKeys. Something like:

defaultValues={{
    firstName: ReimbursementAccountUtils.getDefaultStateForField(this.props, `beneficialOwner.${id}.firstName`),
    ...
    }}
inputKeys={{
    firstName: `beneficialOwner.${id}.firstName`,
    ...
}}

5. Add onValueChange={value => this.setState({hasOtherBeneficialOwners: value})} to the hasOtherBeneficialOwners checkbox.
6. Update the call to this.removeBeneficialOwner to pass the ID of the IdentityForm we are removing.
7. Update the validate function to use the new keys.

_.each(this.state.beneficialOwners, (id) => {
    if (!ValidationUtils.isRequiredFulfilled(values[`beneficialOwner.${id}.firstName`])) {
        errors[`beneficialOwner.${id}.firstName`] = this.props.translate('bankAccount.error.firstName');
    }
    ...

8. The main issue with this approach is that it doesn't update the state in Form, so it could still pass data stored for deleted IdentityForms (if the user removed a beneficial owner as they are editing the form). The only drawback that I can think of is that we will have to filter these values in the submit function so we don't send them with the API request. I think this is a fine trade off considering that it makes the rest of the implementation easier.

Let me know what you think of this approach!

[grgia]

This method looks like it's working well! I wrote out my plan for testing, so I still need to QA edge cases

[luacmartins]

Sounds good! I'll take another look today! Thanks for working on this.

[marcaaron]

OK I am still a little confused, but haven't yet given this a proper investigation to produce any alternatives. Something does not sit right with me about the random id thing. I feel like I would have remembered this from the Design Doc (maybe it didn't come up). It has the feeling of something we might want to bring up in Slack, decide together the best way to do it, and then update everyone on the process (maybe modify the very awesome FORMS.md doc 😉).

[luacmartins]

I don't think this came up in the doc (at least I don't recall it either). IMO the random id solution solves this issue quite well, but I'm open to discussing this further in Slack if others prefer that.

[grgia]

I'd love to see this get to the finish line this week, but I'm happy to hold this for a discussion and move forward with whatever is decided (final testing for the current method or implementing a new method). I agree that the current method works well, and also that it would be worth updating everyone on the process and why it's done this way in FORMS.md

[marcaaron]

so, sounds like we agree that it's a good thing to discuss and that you are offering to lead a discussion on it? Or no? 😄

It might feel like a small battle - but I am concerned with this solution because it feels like something I would never remember how to do or know the reason why a random ID is used. I am barely understanding the explanation about why it is needed. I'd say that's a sign we haven't solved it in the best way possible (maybe I'm wrong). But if it has to be difficult to understand then at least we can document it better.

[grgia]

Started here!

[grgia]

Implemented the first pass of suggestions!

[luacmartins]

@grgia PR is looking good! Just a few small comments/suggestions to address and we should be good!

[luacmartins]

@grgia let me know once this is ready for another round of review!

[grgia]

Just finishing up testing the latest branch! I'll ping you once I'm done

[grgia]

Okay, @luacmartins I tested again and it's working well! Ready for another review or move this out of draft :)

[grgia]

Fixed the lint errors!

[luacmartins]

LGTM and tests well! Thanks for working on this @grgia!

[mollfpr]

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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / 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 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
• 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(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.
• 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

13501.Web.-.QA.Identity.Form.Validation.mov

13501.Web.-.QA.Required.Validation.mov

13501.Web.-.QA.Beneficial.Owners.-.Identity.Form.Flow.mov

13501.Web.-.QA.Form.Submissions.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

13501.mWeb-Chrome.-.QA.Identity.Form.Validation.mov

13501.mWeb-Chrome.-.QA.Required.Validation.mov

13501.mWeb-Chrome.-.QA.Beneficial.Owners.-.Identity.Form.Flow.mov

13501.mWeb-Chrome.-.QA.Form.Submissions.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

13501.mWeb-Safari.-.QA.Beneficial.Owners.-.Identity.Form.Flow.mp4

13501.mWeb-Safari.-.QA.Required.Validation.mp4

13501.mWeb-Safari.-.QA.Form.Submissions.mp4

13501.mWeb-Safari.-.QA.Identity.Form.Validation.mp4

Desktop

13501.Desktop.-.QA.Identity.Form.Validation.mov

13501.Desktop.-.QA.Beneficial.Owners.-.Identity.Form.Flow.mov

13501.Desktop.-.QA.Required.Validation.mov

13501.Desktop.-.QA.Form.Submissions.mov

iOS

13501.iOS.-.QA.Required.Validation.mp4

13501.iOS.-.QA.Beneficial.Owners.-.Identity.Form.Flow.mp4

13501.iOS.-.QA.Identity.Form.Validation.mp4

13501.iOS.-.QA.Form.Submissions.mov

Android

13501.Android.-.QA.Required.Validation.mov

13501.Android.-.QA.Identity.Form.Validation.mov

13501.Android.-.QA.Beneficial.Owners.-.Identity.Form.Flow.mov

13501.Android.-.QA.Form.Submissions.mov

[luacmartins]

Just waiting for the checklist here and then we are should be good to merge!

[mollfpr]

Great job @grgia!

Looks good to me and tests well on all cases and all platforms. cc @luacmartins

[luacmartins]

Merging since @marcaaron had already approved these changes!

[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.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.2.64-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.2.64-7 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.2.64-7 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.2.64-7 🚀

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

[sobitneupane]

This change in the PR caused #14784 regression.

Title: Settings - Changed name is not saved under Display name page

Steps to reprodcue:

• Click on >Setting>Profile > Display name
• Change name>Click Save
• Click the back arrow
• Click the Display name again
• The new name does not match the old name

[mananjadhav]

I am tagging this PR to highlight an issue fixed here. All conditions in ternary expressions or left-hand operands on conditional renders, should be boolean. This PR is one of the PRs that uses conditional render with string operands, hence I am tagging it here for the contributors to check.

We've also updated the item in the checklist with this PR to avoid this issue in the future.