Correct the logic for when bill split particpants can be selected #13279
Conversation
…-selection' into tgolen-fix-iou-confirmation-user-selection # Conflicts: # src/components/IOUConfirmationList.js
melvin-bot
bot
requested review from
sketchydroide and
sobitneupane
and removed request for
a team
|
@sobitneupane @sketchydroide 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] |
| @@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ const propTypes = { | |||
| phoneNumber: PropTypes.string, | |||
| })).isRequired, | |||
|
|
|||
| /** Is this IOU associated with existing report */ | |||
| /** Is this IOU associated with existing report. This is true when the action is initiated from inside a group chat and it's false when the action is initiated from the | |||
| * floating-action-button */ | |||
| isIOUAttachedToExistingChatReport: PropTypes.bool.isRequired, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a part of me that wants to rename this prop to canModifyParticipants and make it more clear what's happening. Let me know if you agree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah the name is hard to read and I don't understand what it supposed to be right now, your suggestion makes sense
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if it's the only thing that it's doing right now, which it seems to be the case
|
@tgolen I asked @JmillsExpensify about this change here and it seems like the DD mentions not being able to adjust members on this page. I'm happy to change if that's the intended behavior though |
|
Should we take this back to Slack? |
|
It was changed later than the original release of N5 as a follow-up, so I imagine that's why it isn't in the OG doc when you looked there. It was changed to allow deselecting in a groupDM because sometimes not everyone in the group is part of every single shared expense, like if you created a group for a trip you were all going on a la splitwise. Else, you would have to create all these sub groups for when someone skips a dinner etc. |
| @@ -275,7 +276,13 @@ class IOUConfirmationList extends Component { | |||
| const shouldShowSettlementButton = this.props.iouType === CONST.IOU.IOU_TYPE.SEND; | |||
| const shouldDisableButton = selectedParticipants.length === 0; | |||
| const recipient = this.state.participants[0]; | |||
| const canModifyParticipants = !this.props.isIOUAttachedToExistingChatReport && this.props.hasMultipleParticipants; | |||
|
|
|||
| // The participants can only be modified when: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we do change the props name, maybe this somment makes more sense in the owner of this component?
Or at least part of it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, sounds like we are settled with this being the correct logic.
@sketchydroide I have renamed the prop and moved the location of the detailed comment as well. Thanks!
|
@sobitneupane happy to merge once you do your review |
|
NAB: Noticed following things while testing the PR. Just noting down to make sure they are expected.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 Issuessection 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
Testssection - I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the
QA stepssection - 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 verified the steps for local testing are in the
- 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:
- iOS / native
- Android / native
- iOS / Safari
- Android / Chrome
- MacOS / Chrome
- 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.
toggleReportand notonIconClick). - 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 was added in all
src/languages/*files - I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by adding the
Waiting for Copylabel 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
- 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.
- 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 usingAvatarhave 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
thisproperly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}the methodthis.submitshould be bound tothisin the constructor) - Any internal methods bound to
thisare necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);ifthis.submitis never passed to a component event handler likeonClick) - 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 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
Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris 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.
- 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.2022-12-06.at.16.34.39.mov
Mobile Web - Chrome
Screen.Recording.2022-12-06.at.17.09.06.mov
Mobile Web - Safari
Screen.Recording.2022-12-06.at.17.11.36.mov
Desktop
Screen.Recording.2022-12-06.at.17.03.52.mov
iOS
Screen.Recording.2022-12-06.at.17.18.03.mov
Android
Screen.Recording.2022-12-06.at.17.13.52.mov
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changes look good and test well. Noted few things here just to make sure they are expected.
🎀👀🎀 C+ reviewed
This isn't expected. The split message should go in the existing groupDM between all members. For example:
This isn't expected. Just to ensure we're on the same page though about why, is this what's happening?
DMs should always be unique. There can't be two DMs with the same members, whether that be a 1:1 DM or a groupDM.
This isn't expected either. If you're inside a groupDM and splitting a bill, the split message should be posted in that groupDM you took the action from, as that's your intention for visibility for the other group members, else you wouldn't be going through this flow? Writing it out for completeness:
|
@trjExpensify When we split bill from a room (not group), group gets created with split message.
|
|
Oh, blanked on the room distinction on that one - my bad! I don't think that's expected either though. It's strange to take a split action inside a room, and then have it post to somewhere totally different. |
Interesting. I'm pretty sure this was the behavior before the refactors and I intentionally refactored the new command to do this. It seems like we need to change this based on @trjExpensify's comments?
@trjExpensify isn't this expected since these are IOUs (P2P) instead of an expense report? Do we wanna keep personal requests in policy rooms?
This seems like a bug. The current behavior adds both messages to a split request with just one other user. |
|
I love all the comments about that, but would it be OK to move this outside of the PR? This PR is specifically about flipping the logic for when participants can be modified so all of this is out-of-scope. |
|
Ah yes, we can merge this and continue the discussion in Slack. |
|
✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release. |
|
🚀 Deployed to production by @chiragsalian in version: 1.2.38-6 🚀
|
cc @luacmartins since it appears you flipped the logic in this PR: #11597 (comment). I was talking with @trjExpensify about it and that was a mistake.
Fixed Issues
$ #13220
Tests
Test the floating-action-button
Test the in-chat menu
Offline tests
Same as the above tests, it should behave the same
QA Steps
Same tests as above
PR Author Checklist
### Fixed Issuessection aboveTestssectionOffline stepssectionQA stepssectiontoggleReportand notonIconClick)src/languages/*filesWaiting for Copylabel for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.STYLE.md) were followedAvatar, I verified the components usingAvatarare working as expected)/** comment above it */thisproperly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}the methodthis.submitshould be bound tothisin the constructor)thisare necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);ifthis.submitis never passed to a component event handler likeonClick)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases)Screenshots/Videos
Web
2022-12-02_11-22-50.mp4
Mobile Web - Chrome
2022-12-02_11-25-48.mp4
Mobile Web - Safari
2022-12-02_11-28-54.mp4
Desktop
2022-12-02_11-23-34.mp4
iOS
2022-12-02_11-26-50.mp4
Android
2022-12-02_11-24-48.mp4