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

Fix - On increasing the screen size the user can see the previous image in the list #17760 #18615

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
May 12, 2023

Conversation

AmjedNazzal
Copy link
Contributor

@AmjedNazzal AmjedNazzal commented May 8, 2023

Details

Addresses the issue with resizing the browser causing other images in the AttachmentCarousel to show up for a second by changing the method in which the width of the attachment container updates.

Fixed Issues

$ #17760
PROPOSAL: #17760 (comment)

Tests

  1. Open a report (Chat) and share a few attachments.
  2. Open one of the attachments to access the attachments carousel.
  3. Try resizing the browser while observing the attachments carousel.
  4. Verify that you can't see previous or next attachments while resizing and only seeing the attachment you are currently viewing.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same steps as the test

  • 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
Screen.Recording.2023-05-09.at.12.05.26.AM.mov
Mobile Web - Chrome android browser
Mobile Web - Safari ios browser
Desktop
Screen.Recording.2023-05-09.at.1.40.52.AM.mov
iOS ios native
Android android native

@AmjedNazzal AmjedNazzal requested a review from a team as a code owner May 8, 2023 22:46
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from aimane-chnaif and chiragsalian and removed request for a team May 8, 2023 22:46
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented May 8, 2023

@chiragsalian @aimane-chnaif 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]

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 8, 2023

CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 8, 2023

CLA Assistant Lite bot:
Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open-source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution. You can sign the CLA by just posting a Pull Request Comment same as the below format.


I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA


You can retrigger this bot by commenting recheck in this Pull Request

@AmjedNazzal
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@AmjedNazzal PR title should be meaningful

@AmjedNazzal AmjedNazzal changed the title 17760 Fix - On increasing the screen size the user can see the previous image in the list #17760 May 9, 2023
@AmjedNazzal
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aimane-chnaif Updated the title :)

@AmjedNazzal
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aimane-chnaif my suggested change uses -40 instead of -39 because that seem to be the originally intended spacing, also it gives the border width of 1 to small screens.

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@aimane-chnaif my suggested change uses -40 instead of -39 because that seem to be the originally intended spacing, also it gives the border width of 1 to small screens.

I checked the difference from console log and -39 was the correct value

Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <96077027+aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>
@@ -252,7 +252,8 @@ class AttachmentCarousel extends React.Component {
* @returns {JSX.Element}
*/
renderCell(props) {
const style = [props.style, styles.h100, {width: this.state.containerWidth}];
// We are isolating the method this function uses to update the width of the container to make it respond faster
const style = [props.style, styles.h100, {width: this.props.isSmallScreenWidth ? this.props.windowWidth - 1 : this.props.windowWidth - 39}];
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For code dry, let's make 40 common value for centered modal margin and use it everywhere

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And apply same for borderWidth

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@AmjedNazzal any update on code dry suggestion?

@AmjedNazzal
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aimane-chnaif We already have a central modal center here:

getItemLayout(data, index) {
return {
length: this.state.containerWidth,
offset: this.state.containerWidth * index,
index,
};
}

We are indeed using it in the FlatList, problem is that I tried this:
const style = [props.style, styles.h100, {width: this.getItemLayout().length}];

And this does give the correct styling for centered modals with -40 and borderWdith but it's still not updating fast enough to solve the issue of the browser scaling and you'd still see the previous and next attachment, I think the issue here is that the central calculation is not capable to keep up with the speed of increasing browser size fast.

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@AmjedNazzal I just asked dry code, not change logic
Does this make sense? main...aimane-chnaif:Expensify:issue-17760

@AmjedNazzal
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aimane-chnaif Looking at changes you made, is there a specific reason for why we can't just do this? or would you say this is changing logic? aside from that your changes look great.

const modalStyles = styles.centeredModalStyles(this.props.isSmallScreenWidth);
const style = [props.style, styles.h100, modalStyles, {width: this.props.windowWidth + 1}];

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@AmjedNazzal so if I rephrase your question, why can't we use windowWidth instead of '100%' right?
This is just for safety. I don't want any other regressions because of this minor change.

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@aimane-chnaif Looking at changes you made, is there a specific reason for why we can't just do this? or would you say this is changing logic? aside from that your changes look great.

const modalStyles = styles.centeredModalStyles(this.props.isSmallScreenWidth);
const style = [props.style, styles.h100, modalStyles, {width: this.props.windowWidth + 1}];

It should be exactly the same as layout width. It will cause regression if you have many attachments and click arrow buttons to see prev/next attachment.

@AmjedNazzal
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aimane-chnaif sure that make sense then, thank you for clarifying. I think the changes you made are as DRY as they can be since everything is now connected to one thing in styles.js

src/components/AttachmentCarousel/index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/components/AttachmentCarousel/index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@AmjedNazzal please pull from main

@aimane-chnaif
Copy link
Contributor

@AmjedNazzal can you also address comments I suggested?

AmjedNazzal and others added 3 commits May 11, 2023 10:28
Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <96077027+aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <96077027+aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>
@AmjedNazzal
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aimane-chnaif All done

@aimane-chnaif
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 / 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

Web
web.mov
Mobile Web - Chrome
mchrome.mov
Mobile Web - Safari
msafari.mov
Desktop
desktop.mov
iOS
ios.mov
Android
android.mov

Copy link
Contributor

@aimane-chnaif aimane-chnaif left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 🎉
@chiragsalian all yours

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.

lgtm

@chiragsalian chiragsalian merged commit 5fd5419 into Expensify:main May 12, 2023
@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: 1.3.14-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

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

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

Comment on lines -245 to +248
const style = [props.style, styles.h100, {width: this.state.containerWidth}];
// Use window width instead of layout width to address the issue in https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/17760
// considering horizontal margin and border width in centered modal
const modalStyles = styles.centeredModalStyles(this.props.isSmallScreenWidth);
const style = [props.style, styles.h100, {width: this.props.windowWidth - (modalStyles.marginHorizontal + modalStyles.borderWidth) * 2 + 1}];
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the ping @aimane-chnaif

As a developer, I have concerns with this approach as it seems to create an implicit coupling between components.

If, for any reason, someone changes the generic modal dimensions through methods other than marginHorizontal or borderWidth, they could inadvertently disrupt the width utilized here without even realizing it.

Moreover, the Carousel appears to be aware of its rendering context within a centered modal - a detail which, ideally, it should not be concerned with.

It seems we might be trading one bug, that only occurs on resize, for another which could potentially occur all the time.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@kidroca thanks for the feedback. I know this is not ideal solution.
Do you have better solution to be synced with window size considering margin and border?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If addressing this bug is crucial, my preference would be to continue using containerWidth, but dynamically adjust its value in accordance with changes in window size. Here's a step-by-step outline of how this could work:

  1. Upon opening the carousel, we capture the initial values of both containerWidth and windowWidth.
  2. Changes to the window size are broadcast first, allowing us to respond instantly as these changes occur.
  3. We then calculate the proportion by which windowWidth has either shrunk or expanded, and immediately apply this same proportion to containerWidth.

This solution is universal and does not depend on specifics. It remains effective regardless of specific properties or the modal context, thereby reducing the risk of inadvertently introducing new issues.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That makes sense. So containerWidth's first value comes from onLayout callback and we store size difference between containerWidth and windowWidth. And then whenever windowWidth changes, containerWidth = windowWidth - stored diff value. Right?

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.

5 participants