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

[No QA][Free trial] Implement all Free Trials utility functions #43844

Conversation

fabioh8010
Copy link
Contributor

Details

NOTE 1: ReportUtils.findPolicyExpenseChatByPolicyID() won't be implemented in this PR/issue. It makes more sense to be implemented on #43673

NOTE 2: I had to make some TS fixes (commit) because as we are adding new Onyx keys, OnyxUpdate typings is starting to show problems in some situations, more details here.

Fixed Issues

$ #43668
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  1. Run the unit tests with npm test, all tests should pass.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A

  • 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: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • 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 grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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 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(theme.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 the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

@fabioh8010 fabioh8010 marked this pull request as ready for review June 17, 2024 15:18
@fabioh8010 fabioh8010 requested a review from a team as a code owner June 17, 2024 15:18
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from hoangzinh and removed request for a team June 17, 2024 15:18
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 17, 2024

@hoangzinh 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]

@fabioh8010
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @rojiphil @hoangzinh

}

const currentDate = new Date();
const difference = differenceInCalendarDays(parseDate(lastDayFreeTrial, CONST.DATE.FNS_DATE_TIME_FORMAT_STRING, currentDate), currentDate);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would not difference become 0 when the currentDate is lastDayFreeTrial and be considered as trial ended even when it has not really ended?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Adjusted the logic to calculate with second precision cc @chiragsalian


// If it reached here it means that the user is actually the workspace's owner.
// We should restrict the workspace's owner actions if it's past its grace period end date and it's owing some amount.
if (ownerBillingGraceEndPeriod && amountOwed !== undefined && isAfter(currentDate, fromUnixTime(ownerBillingGraceEndPeriod))) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can amountOwed have a value of 0? In that case, it will be considered that the workspace owner owes some amount (as we only have undefined check) thereby restricting user billable actions. This does not seem correct.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense, I've adjusted but could you confirm @chiragsalian ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

its cool that you accounted for this but no amountOwed cannot be a value of 0. We just delete this entry from the database if its value is 0.

tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 69 to 71
if (!firstDayFreeTrial || !lastDayFreeTrial) {
return true;
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's an incorrect value when either of those values hasn't been set/loaded yet or user hasn't started the free trial yet.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You are right, adjusted! cc @chiragsalian

tests/unit/SubscriptionUtilsTest.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB but just found one more minor issue related to description. I have added a suggestion for the same. Please have a look.
Otherwise, I think the code looks super good once we address the above. Thanks.

src/ONYXKEYS.ts Outdated
@@ -376,6 +391,10 @@ const ONYXKEYS = {

// Search Page related
SNAPSHOT: 'snapshot_',

// Shared NVPs
/** Collection of objects where each objects represents a workspace’s owner which is past due billing AND the user is a member of. */
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would this sound better?

Suggested change
/** Collection of objects where each objects represents a workspace’s owner which is past due billing AND the user is a member of. */
/** Collection of objects where each object represents a workspace’s non-owner(normal users and admins) who is member of a workspace where the owner is past due billing. */

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@rojiphil That is not true, each object represents the workspace owner where the user is member of. I've changed to Collection of objects where each object represents the owner of the workspace that is past due billing AND the user is a member of. Wdyt?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah! You are right. It makes sense too.

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

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: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • 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 grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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(theme.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 the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • 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

Run Test
20240618_233413.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

NA

MacOS: Desktop

NA

Android: Native

NA

Android: mWeb Chrome

NA

iOS: Native

NA

iOS: mWeb Safari

NA

Copy link
Contributor

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes LGTM. Also unit tests run well. Thanks @fabioh8010

Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 18, 2024

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #43673 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

@aldo-expensify Are you the internal engineer here? The comment here seems to suggest so.

@aldo-expensify
Copy link
Contributor

@aldo-expensify Are you the internal engineer here? The comment here seems to suggest so.

I believe so, unless this is supposed to be handled by someone more familiar with the project

Copy link
Contributor

@hoangzinh hoangzinh 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

melvin-bot bot commented Jun 18, 2024

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #43673 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

@chiragsalian can you review this?

@chiragsalian chiragsalian self-requested a review June 19, 2024 17:16
Copy link
Contributor

@chiragsalian chiragsalian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice, the code LGTM

/**
* Whether the report is a system chat or concierge chat, depending on the user's account ID.
*/
function isChatUsedForOnboarding(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NAB: we should add some context that these are used for A/B testing because it could be rather confusing for anyone reading this that we're doing different logic depending on whether accountID is odd or even.

@chiragsalian
Copy link
Contributor

Cool looks like all the comments are handled. My NAB can be addressed in a follow-up, merging.

@chiragsalian chiragsalian merged commit 765127b into Expensify:main Jun 19, 2024
19 of 26 checks passed
@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/chiragsalian in version: 1.4.86-0 🚀

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

1 similar comment
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/chiragsalian in version: 1.4.86-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/chiragsalian in version: 1.4.86-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.0.0-9 🚀

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

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.

9 participants