Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Workspaces in money request modal #17132

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Apr 14, 2023
Merged

Conversation

cristipaval
Copy link
Contributor

@cristipaval cristipaval commented Apr 7, 2023

Details

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/270683

Tests

  1. Login with an admin account and create a new workspace
  2. Invite an employee to the workspace
  3. Login with the employee account
  4. Verify that you can initiate a money request to the workspace using the global create --note that tapping the Request $X button in the final step won't do anything for now since we are still implementing this feature
  5. Verify that you can initiate a money request to the workspace using the plus button from the workspace chat -- note that tapping the Request $X button in the final step won't do anything for now since we are still implementing this feature
  6. Verify that you can complete a money request from any person using the global create -- tapping the Request $X button should work in this case
  7. Verify that you can complete a money request from any person using the plus button from the direct chat -- tapping the Request $X button should work in this case
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests

  • 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:
    • 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
chrome.mobile.mov
Mobile Web - Safari
safari.mobile.mov
Desktop
desktop.mov
iOS
ios.native.mov
Android
android.native.mov

@cristipaval cristipaval self-assigned this Apr 7, 2023
@cristipaval cristipaval marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2023 20:12
@cristipaval cristipaval requested a review from a team as a code owner April 10, 2023 20:12
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from fedirjh and techievivek and removed request for a team April 10, 2023 20:12
@MelvinBot
Copy link

@fedirjh @techievivek 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]

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/pages/iou/MoneyRequestModal.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@fedirjh
Copy link
Contributor

fedirjh commented Apr 11, 2023

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

Screenshots/Videos

Web
Screen.Recording.2023-04-11.at.6.32.21.AM.mov
Mobile Web - Chrome
Screen.Recording.2023-04-12.at.5.29.30.PM.mov
Mobile Web - Safari
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.14.-.2023-04-11.at.06.48.23.mp4
Desktop
Screen.Recording.2023-04-11.at.6.38.59.AM.mov
iOS
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.14.-.2023-04-11.at.06.44.42.mp4
Android
Screen.Recording.2023-04-11.at.6.58.07.AM.mov

Copy link
Contributor

@fedirjh fedirjh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have addressed this minor bug . Over All code LGTM.

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js Show resolved Hide resolved
src/pages/iou/MoneyRequestModal.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@luacmartins luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking great! Let's just address @fedirjh's comments and we should be good here.

I think that we should update testing steps so that it's clear to QA and they don't fail this PR:

  1. Verify that you can initiate a money request to the workspace using the global create --note that tapping the Request $X button in the final step won't do anything for now since we are still implementing this feature
  2. Verify that you can initiate a money request to the workspace using the plus button from the workspace chat -- note that tapping the Request $X button in the final step won't do anything for now since we are still implementing this feature
  3. Verify that you can complete a money request from any person using the global create -- tapping the Request $X button should work in this case
  4. Verify that you can complete a money request from any person using the plus button from the direct chat -- tapping the Request $X button should work in this case

@cristipaval
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Julesssss @fedirjh @luacmartins @mountiny Love all your feedback!
ready for review again.

Copy link
Contributor

@luacmartins luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

Copy link
Contributor

@fedirjh fedirjh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM and tests well 🚀

@MelvinBot
Copy link

🎯 @fedirjh, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

An E/App issue has been created to issue payment here: #17442.

@Julesssss Julesssss merged commit 32b1e01 into main Apr 14, 2023
@Julesssss Julesssss deleted the cristi_workspaces-in-MoneyRequestModal branch April 14, 2023 09:31
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

✋ 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
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.3.1-0 🚀

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

1 similar comment
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.3.1-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.3.1-3 🚀

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

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor

s77rt commented May 17, 2023

This PR caused a bug #18708. The filtered reports here

const filteredPolicyExpenseReports = _.filter(policyExpenseReports, policyExpenseReport => policyExpenseReport.policyID === report.policyID);
should have been based on isOwnPolicyExpenseChat to only get the workspace report and drop the other 1:1 policy expense reports.

}],
payPalMeAddress: lodashGet(details, 'payPalMeAddress', ''),
phoneNumber: lodashGet(details, 'phoneNumber', ''),
}));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just wondering: Any reason we didn't add isMoneyRequestReport: true here? Since I believe this is only used in money request reports

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe because of the split case, since those don't create an IOU/Expense report for the group chat?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnteresting that would make sense :D

return {
...expenseReport,
keyForList: expenseReport.policyID,
text: expenseReport.displayName,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not exactly a regression but we shouldn't have used expenseReport.displayName here because the display name is not necessary the policy name. The display name is the policy name only if you are the policy expense chat owner.

This worked fine with money request because you are the only one who can see the participants list (and that's only at the creation phase). But that's not the case with split action.

Comment on lines +111 to +115
icons: [{
source: policyExpenseChatAvatarSource,
name: expenseReport.displayName,
type: CONST.ICON_TYPE_WORKSPACE,
}],
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should have used the already existing createOption to generate these options. Using the icons object like this caused #28731

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants