Prevent duplicate requests on network failure

[jjcoffee]

Details

The Reauthentication middleware was blocking requests from SequentialQueue from completing if the user was offline just as the request completes, which caused SequentialQueue to create a duplicate request and an ugly technical error on the FE as a result.

Fixed Issues

$ #16637
PROPOSAL: #16637 (comment)

Tests

For testing on Chrome:

1. Add an attachment (large files, say a 10MB image, give you more time to apply the next steps) to any report and send
2. In Chrome DevTools set the network to Offline
3. Wait for the original AddAttachment API request to complete
4. Set the network back to normal (No throttling)
5. A second AddAttachment API request should show in the network requests tab, and the ugly technical error should show in the report.

Local testing with mobiles can be done as above but switching WiFi on the phone off/on. For Android, make sure to run with adb reverse, e.g. adb reverse tcp:8080 tcp:8080 (or whatever your config is).

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as above.

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

Screenshots/Videos

Web

new-network-chrome-desktop-2023-05-05_12.10.57.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

new-network-chrome-android.mp4

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

new-network-mac-desktop-2023-05-05_12.10.57.mp4

iOS

Android

new-network-android-native.mp4

[MelvinBot]

@johnmlee101 @Santhosh-Sellavel 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]

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

@jjcoffee Can you update web & desktop screens as well?

[jjcoffee]

@Santhosh-Sellavel Not sure where the web one disappeared to! I've added both now.

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

@jjcoffee I'm still getting the error here, did we miss something here?

Screen.Recording.2023-05-03.at.6.49.37.AM.mov

[jjcoffee]

@Santhosh-Sellavel Hmm I actually think that's a slightly different issue, as the addAttachment API request actually fails if you look at it in DevTools, so I think it makes sense that we retry the request (since we don't know if the upload actually succeeded as we have no response to read from the server). In this specific case I think BE may need changing so that the response includes the necessary details to perform the Onyx merge (so the image data in this case), rather than throwing an error.

I was only able to get this behaviour (request actually failing) when going offline very close to sending the attachment - it's actually pretty hard to replicate (for me at least!). The original fix deals with a slightly different behaviour of waiting a bit before going offline, which means the request actually succeeds, but we generate an additional request anyway.

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

@jjcoffee Try with a file 20 mb, use slow 3g initially instead of no throttling it's easy to reproduce.

[jjcoffee]

@Santhosh-Sellavel That's what I've been trying, it's not consistent for me at all (I can't get it to happen right now, for example). More often than not I get the request stuck on "pending" or completing whilst offline, rather than it actually failing as in your case. Could there be anything else specific you're doing?

[jjcoffee]

@Santhosh-Sellavel Also just to rule out anything specific with your setup, can you also reproduce the behaviour I'm fixing here, where the request doesn't fail but succeeds whilst offline?

[jjcoffee]

@Santhosh-Sellavel I've been trying a bunch of times and I definitely can't repro very often (maybe 1/50 times or something). I suspect this may be therefore more of an edge case, as both the reproductions on the issue have the behaviour that the request succeeds.

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

There is a more straight-forward way here check the below video

Screen.Recording.2023-05-03.at.9.23.35.PM.mov

[jjcoffee]

@Santhosh-Sellavel Oh this was a fun one! I still can't replicate consistently on Chrome (Linux), but I finally can repro on Firefox (actually with both methods). In short I have pushed a new commit that fixes the type of behaviour you're experiencing when going offline (the API request failing), whilst maintaining the fix for the one I was getting mostly (where the request succeeds). Full rationale for the changes below!

For the case where the request actually fails, we can't really know why it failed from the FE so I think it's correct behaviour to retry the request here. So I propose that we still run the second addAttachment API request, and if it results in the server returning the error (400 Unique Constraints Violation) that's due to us using a duplicate reportActionID, we throw it as an error in HttpUtils and handle it in SequentialQueue by clearing the request (same as how we handle cancelled requests).

I think it's reasonable to expect that Unique Constraints Violation only happens in instances like this and that we don't need to display anything about it on the FE (it's actually a database error when trying to insert a duplicated ID), as the end user is powerless to do anything about it. Maybe the BE could be tweaked to report a more specific message (i.e. "Duplicate ID" or something) for easier debugging, but otherwise I think this is a pretty clean solution.

[jjcoffee]

@Santhosh-Sellavel I've merged main back into this PR per this Slack message, and also retested across the devices that are possible for me to (so just missing iOS).

For Chrome Desktop I figured out that disabling the server (via exiting the npm run web) more reliably gets the same behaviour you've been having of the request failing. Hope we can get this merged by Monday!

[jjcoffee]

@Santhosh-Sellavel Updated the JSON_CODE to be more generic, so ready for re-review. Thanks!

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Screen.Recording.2023-05-11.at.11.15.54.PM.mov

Mobile Web - Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-05-09.at.11.29.40.PM.mov

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-05-09.at.11.24.09.PM.mov

Android

Screen.Recording.2023-05-09.at.11.35.07.PM.mov

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

@johnmlee101 LGTM, I will get done with the checklist & web recording by tomorrow, thanks!

[johnmlee101]

Awesome, let me know when that's done and I'll do a final pass review!

[jjcoffee]

There was a small merge conflict (just a formatting tweak in SequentialQueue), so I've merged main back in and retested - all looks good!

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

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 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 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

#18237 (comment)

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

LGTM, tests well!

All yours @johnmlee101

[Santhosh-Sellavel]

Not sure what went wrong earlier, the web platforms also work now for me.

[melvin-bot]

Congrats, that’s your 5th PR merged! 🎉 Do you know about the ContributorPlus role? It’s an opportunity to earn more in the Expensify Open Source community. Keep up the great work - thanks!

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/johnmlee101 in version: 1.3.14-0 🚀

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

[johnmlee101]

Tested and works on staging

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 1.3.14-14 🚀

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