fix: standardise the usage of url validator #17564

allroundexperts · 2023-04-18T06:57:51Z

Details

This PR fixes the broken URL validation while adding a bank account. Instead of using a new Regex to validate the URL, I'm making use of the existing one in the expensify-common library.

Fixed Issues

$ #17205
PROPOSAL: #17205 (comment)

Tests

Open the Settings menu.
Click on "Workspaces."
Select "Connect Bank Account."
Click on "Company Information (step 2 of 5)."
Click on “Company Website”.
Enter any URL but remove the dot (.) from it.

Verify that error shows up correctly stating the URL as invalid.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Open the Settings menu.
Click on "Workspaces."
Select "Connect Bank Account."
Click on "Company Information (step 2 of 5)."
Click on “Company Website”.
Enter any URL but remove the dot (.) from it.

Verify that error shows up correctly stating the URL as invalid.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Screen.Recording.2023-04-18.at.11.45.11.AM.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-04-18.at.11.47.42.AM.mov

Mobile Web - Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-04-18.at.11.48.57.AM.mov

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-04-18.at.11.46.16.AM.mov

iOS

Screen.Recording.2023-04-18.at.12.45.05.PM.mov

Android

Screen.Recording.2023-04-18.at.11.50.20.AM.mov

allroundexperts · 2023-04-18T07:44:16Z

Initially, I proposed to include URL_WEBSITE_REGEX from expensify-common. However, that does not allow paths in the website. This was causing some of our jest tests to fail as they expect URLs with path as valid. Thus, I imported URL_REGEX from expensify-common which allows paths at the end of a URL.

Also, our tests were considering a URL without https/http as invalid. I think this is wrong and the regex imported from expensify-common seems to make protocol optional as well. So I've fixed the expected behaviour there as well.

Furthermore, the tests were considering ftp:// protocol links as a valid URL. The regex defined in expensify-common only allows http/https. I think this is something we need to change in the expensify-common library? Would love your opinion @puneetlath @thesahindia

For now, I've fixed the above mentioned anomalies in the test. If everyone agrees here, I'll open a PR in expensify-common library and change the regex such that it supports more protocols.

MelvinBot · 2023-04-18T07:49:18Z

@puneetlath @thesahindia 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]

allroundexperts · 2023-04-18T08:15:25Z

I've actually created draft PR in expensify-common as well with 2 changes:

Accept ftp/smtp as allowed protocols in the URL
Added proper allowed port range (0-65535)

Expensify/expensify-common#519

puneetlath · 2023-04-18T15:45:43Z

Ok, cool. I think those changes make sense. So we should make the expensify-common update first and then use this PR to up the expensify-common version used in App, yeah?

allroundexperts · 2023-04-18T15:46:37Z

Ok, cool. I think those changes make sense. So we should make the expensify-common update first and then use this PR to up the expensify-common version used in App, yeah?

@puneetlath Yes. That makes more sense!

MonilBhavsar · 2023-04-18T18:12:54Z

tests/unit/ValidationUtilsTest.js

-        test('Invalid URLs without protocols', () => {
-            expect(ValidationUtils.isValidWebsite('www.expensify.com')).toBe(false);
-            expect(ValidationUtils.isValidWebsite('expensify.com')).toBe(false);
+        test('Valid URLs without protocols', () => {


We need websites with a valid protocol, so this is invalid.

http, https, ftp are valid protocols accepted by the server as a part of form validation, so In company information step, websites without protocols won't be considered as valid

@MonilBhavsar I'm just trying to be consistent here with the regex that we have in expensify-common library for URL validation.

The protocol part is optional in that regex. Please take a look Expensify/expensify-common#519.

Hmm, i think we need to be bit strict with URLs that we accept as a part of setting up accounts, and align with server side validation. whereas we can consider a URL with or without protocol a URL when sending/viewing a simple chat message.

Hm... Are we sure that we need the protocol to be present with URLs? Because, at a lot of different apps, I don't think its needed.

@puneetlath @thesahindia Can I get your input here as well? If we're to make the protocol required, then I think I'll need to export the URL regex defined in the expensify-common lib without the protocol.

I think yes, when setting up a bank account. In fact we have that validation currently.

MonilBhavsar

Could you please add automated tests and include website that is failing validation in the issue and include some other similar websites too.

allroundexperts · 2023-04-19T10:23:59Z

Could you please add automated tests and include website that is failing validation in the issue and include some other similar websites too.

Sure @MonilBhavsar. I'll add it once Expensify/expensify-common#519 gets merged.

This reverts commit 33f90d4.

allroundexperts · 2023-04-26T08:11:34Z

@thesahindia @puneetlath This is ready for review now. @MonilBhavsar I've added unit tests for the failing website as well.

thesahindia · 2023-04-26T15:23:15Z

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 grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is 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

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

thesahindia

Works well for me!

cc: @puneetlath @MonilBhavsar

OSBotify · 2023-04-26T16:57:27Z

✋ 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 · 2023-04-27T05:36:43Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.3.7-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2023-04-28T07:52:10Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 1.3.7-3 🚀

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

standardize the usage of url validator

2515dbc

feat: use url regex instead

7ef0427

allroundexperts marked this pull request as ready for review April 18, 2023 07:49

allroundexperts requested a review from a team as a code owner April 18, 2023 07:49

melvin-bot bot requested review from puneetlath and removed request for a team April 18, 2023 07:49

melvin-bot bot requested a review from thesahindia April 18, 2023 07:49

allroundexperts mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2023

[$1000] Phone number and company URL field isn’t highlighted when it fails validation upon form submission. #16760

Closed

6 tasks

MonilBhavsar reviewed Apr 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

allroundexperts mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2023

fix: added protocols to the url along with correct port range Expensify/expensify-common#519

Merged

fix: reverted tests and updated expensify-common import

2273b3f

MonilBhavsar reviewed Apr 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

allroundexperts added 6 commits April 25, 2023 12:13

fix: default highlight order of option selector

33f90d4

Merge branch 'main' into fix-17205

1c8fc78

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into main

0d6981f

Revert "fix: default highlight order of option selector"

9b04433

This reverts commit 33f90d4.

Merge branch 'main' into fix-17205

1bef15a

fix: update expensify-common and add more unit tests

96b5200

allroundexperts requested a review from MonilBhavsar April 26, 2023 08:10

thesahindia approved these changes Apr 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

MonilBhavsar approved these changes Apr 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

puneetlath approved these changes Apr 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

puneetlath merged commit a9707b2 into Expensify:main Apr 26, 2023

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2023

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2023-04-27 #18063

Closed

19 tasks

jjcoffee mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2023

Update expensify-common #18020

Closed

56 tasks

s77rt mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-05-05] [$1000] Web - Chat - "No content to add" error when sending several blank quotes #17504

Closed

6 tasks

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Apr 28, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-05-05] [$1000] URL validator fails in some cases #17205

Closed

6 tasks

jjcoffee mentioned this pull request Apr 28, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-05-05] [$1000] Invalid urls in chat are parsed as valid, redirecting to the app again. #17591

Closed

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: standardise the usage of url validator #17564

fix: standardise the usage of url validator #17564

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023

MelvinBot commented Apr 18, 2023

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023

puneetlath commented Apr 18, 2023

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts Apr 18, 2023

allroundexperts Apr 18, 2023

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023

allroundexperts Apr 18, 2023

allroundexperts Apr 18, 2023

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023

MonilBhavsar left a comment

allroundexperts commented Apr 19, 2023

allroundexperts commented Apr 26, 2023

thesahindia commented Apr 26, 2023

thesahindia left a comment

OSBotify commented Apr 26, 2023

OSBotify commented Apr 27, 2023

OSBotify commented Apr 28, 2023

fix: standardise the usage of url validator #17564

fix: standardise the usage of url validator #17564

Conversation

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023

MelvinBot commented Apr 18, 2023

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023

puneetlath commented Apr 18, 2023

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

allroundexperts Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

allroundexperts Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

allroundexperts Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

allroundexperts Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MonilBhavsar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

allroundexperts commented Apr 19, 2023

allroundexperts commented Apr 26, 2023

thesahindia commented Apr 26, 2023

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

thesahindia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Apr 26, 2023

OSBotify commented Apr 27, 2023

OSBotify commented Apr 28, 2023

allroundexperts commented Apr 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

MonilBhavsar Apr 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading