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

Update Enable Payments terms page with updated terms #3879

Merged
merged 55 commits into from
Jul 30, 2021

Conversation

Jag96
Copy link
Contributor

@Jag96 Jag96 commented Jul 3, 2021

@marcaaron @shawnborton will you please review this?

Details

This PR updates the existing terms page with the approved terms content

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/167278

Tests

Review the terms page and confirm it matches the mockups from https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/167278.

The easiest way to get to the Terms Page without going through the entire OnFido flow is to update the following lines locally:

  1. Undo this change which makes the default step the terms page
  2. Undo this change which will let you navigate to the terms page by tapping on the + button and selecting New Chat

QA Steps

N/A

Tested On

  • Web
  • Mobile Web
  • Desktop
  • iOS
  • Android

Screenshots

Mobile

image image image image

Web/Desktop

image image image image

@Jag96 Jag96 self-assigned this Jul 3, 2021
@Jag96 Jag96 marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2021 03:23
@Jag96 Jag96 requested a review from a team as a code owner July 29, 2021 03:23
@MelvinBot MelvinBot requested review from stitesExpensify and removed request for a team July 29, 2021 03:24
@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Dang, this looks amazing Joe - nice work! Everything looks pretty good to me.

One small thing I noticed that isn't your fault but I would love to have fixed: there is a big white gap above the bottom-docked green button that shouldn't be there...
image

Basically the bottom button component should really just look like this:
image

Lemme know if that makes sense.

@Jag96
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jag96 commented Jul 29, 2021

@shawnborton yup that makes sense! I've removed those top margins:

image

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Nice, looks good!

@stitesExpensify stitesExpensify merged commit ea2d7d0 into main Jul 30, 2021
@stitesExpensify stitesExpensify deleted the joe-terms-step branch July 30, 2021 22:35
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging in version: 1.0.81-8🚀

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

@marcaaron
Copy link
Contributor

@Jag96 Sorry, didn't get to this in time. Was on my To Do list for today.

@Jag96
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jag96 commented Aug 2, 2021

@marcaaron no worries, feel free to leave a review and if there's any follow-ups I can take care of them

super(props);
this.toggleSection = this.toggleSection.bind(this);
this.state = {
isExpanded: this.props.isExpanded,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I didn't see where we are passing this prop and think maybe this should just be false?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

True, we aren't currently using that prop value so I can just remove it and update the initial state to be false here

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 6, 2021

🚀 Deployed to production in version: 1.0.82-7🚀

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

@mananjadhav
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

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.

6 participants