Refactor ReportActionItem to use hooks

[jasperhuangg]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #16264

Tests/QA Steps

[If testing locally perform these using the web proxy]

1. Sign in with your Expensify account.
2. Open/create a policy room with report actions. Verify they render correctly and no console errors are thrown.
3. Scroll to the top of the room. Verify that the created action renders correctly.
4. Rename this room. Verify the room renamed report action renders correctly.
5. React to a report action. Verify that it works as expected.
6. [MOBILE ONLY] Long press on a report action. Verify that the report context menu appears as expected.
7. Via the report action context menu, edit the report action message. Verify that the ReportActionItemMessageEdit component renders correctly.
8. Finally verify that no console errors appeared while you were completing these steps.

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.
• 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

web.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

mweb-chrome.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

mweb-safari.mov

Desktop

desktop.mov

iOS

ios.mov

Android

android.mov

[MelvinBot]

@0xmiroslav @marcaaron One of you needs to 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]

[jasperhuangg]

@0xmiroslav this one requires an Expensify account to test so I took you off the review.

[marcaaron]

Looks good so far! Let's merge main so we can benefit from the linters added in #16323

[marcaaron]

LGTM. I just had one small question, but not sure if it's a blocker.

[marcaaron]

Does this component ever do an initial render with a value for draftMessage? If so, maybe this should be initialized with props.draftMessage?

[jasperhuangg]

ooo that's a good point, I think it actually does now that I think of it since the edit message input can be open right when this component is mounted, updating.

[marcaaron]

@0xmiroslav this one requires an Expensify account to test so I took you off the review.

Why does this require an Expensify account to test? We could add people to the beta if there's some feature they are unable to access?

[0xmiros]

@0xmiroslav this one requires an Expensify account to test so I took you off the review.

Why does this require an Expensify account to test? We could add people to the beta if there's some feature they are unable to access?

I raised similar request on slack
https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C02NK2DQWUX/p1680200377348429

Request: grant policyExpenseChat beta permission to any of test accounts for c+team to review PRs related to workspace chats.
For now, using expensifail account which QA team is using.

[jasperhuangg]

@marcaaron

@0xmiroslav this one requires an Expensify account to test so I took you off the review.

Why does this require an Expensify account to test? We could add people to the beta if there's some feature they are unable to access?

Because Chronos is part of the testing steps, and contributors don't have access to Chronos.

EDIT: updated testing steps

[jasperhuangg]

@0xmiroslav I've updated the testing steps to remove anything that requires internal access. Reassigning ya!

[jasperhuangg]

I had some weird git issues where pull and push hanged for an hour each time and some stuff got royally messed up... I'm gonna open a new PR with my changes and request you guys for review. Sorry for the confusion

[jasperhuangg]

No idea what happened.. opened up a new PR here, closing this out

[marcaaron]

ah too bad you could have got 250 commit points for this one haha 😂