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

Go back to correct page in referral page #32329

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Feb 19, 2024
Merged

Conversation

dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor

@dukenv0307 dukenv0307 commented Dec 1, 2023

Details

Go back to correct page in referral page

Fixed Issues

$ #31866
PROPOSAL: #31866 (comment)

Tests

  1. Go to FAB > Start chat
  2. Click on Get $250
  3. Copy the URL
  4. Send this URL to any report
  5. Click on this URL in the message
  6. Click on back button or confirm button in referral page
  7. Verify that we go back to the report screen
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

  1. Go to FAB > Start chat
  2. Click on Get $250
  3. Copy the URL
  4. Send this URL to any report
  5. Click on this URL in the message
  6. Click on back button or confirm button in referral page
  7. Verify that we go back to the report screen
  • 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 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 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 form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label 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
Screen.Recording.2023-12-01.at.13.18.11.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2023-12-01.at.13.09.47.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2023-12-01.at.13.13.35.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2023-12-01.at.13.08.47.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2023-12-01.at.13.06.37.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2023-12-01.at.13.19.47.mov

@dukenv0307 dukenv0307 marked this pull request as ready for review December 1, 2023 06:20
@dukenv0307 dukenv0307 requested a review from a team as a code owner December 1, 2023 06:20
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from ArekChr and removed request for a team December 1, 2023 06:20
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 1, 2023

@ArekChr 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]

@@ -108,7 +93,7 @@ function ReferralDetailsPage({route, account}) {
success
style={[styles.w100]}
text={translate('common.buttonConfirm')}
onPress={() => Navigation.goBack(getFallbackRoute())}
Copy link
Contributor

@ArekChr ArekChr Dec 1, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why removing fallback routes from here? In the proposal, you said that we need to change only onBackButtonPress in HeaderWithBackButton

we should remove onBackButtonPress props and use the default onBackButtonPress as we did on other page

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. Click on FAB > Request Money > switch to Manual
  2. Enter the amount and click on Next
  3. Click on 'Request money, get $250' to go to the referral page
  4. Reload the page
  5. Click on the 'Got it' Button

Expected Result:
Click on the 'Got it' Button takes you back to the Manual page

Actual Result:
Click on the 'Got it' Button takes you back to the main chat.

issue: #31628

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ArekChr Updated.

}

function getFallbackRoute() {
const fallBackRoute = useMemo(() => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't need memo optimization here, this is a cheap function

@@ -67,6 +63,10 @@ function ReferralDetailsPage({route, account}) {
};

return fallbackRoutes[contentType];
}, [contentType]);

function generateReferralURL(email) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please bring back original order of functions

@ArekChr
Copy link
Contributor

ArekChr commented Dec 4, 2023

I'm still unclear. The back button "<" and the "got it" button seem not inconsistent but should be. Removing the fallback route for both buttons will resolve the issue of opening this page from the chat link. However, it will disrupt the usual flow after a page refresh, preventing us from returning to the search | start chat | sending money | etc., from a referral after reloading. I'm still contemplating the best solution, as the current setup needs to fulfil the requirements, we should rethink this flow

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ArekChr What should we do now?

@ArekChr
Copy link
Contributor

ArekChr commented Dec 6, 2023

The issue is with how we are setting up the routes. Right now, when we go to 'request money', choose 'manual', and click 'referral', the route changes. It goes from this:

https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/request/new/participants/

to this:

https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/referral/request

If we merge all these routes into one, it will make the route history more transparent. This should solve both problems when refreshing the page, going back or pressing got it, and when opening the route from the chat link.
After that, we won't need to store the fallback route page. The new, combined route would be:

https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/request/new/participants/referral/request

@luacmartins, WDYT? I need your 👀 here.

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm that makes sense and would indeed make the routes more logical IMO. That being said, we need to account for the other content types -

App/src/CONST.ts

Lines 2829 to 2833 in 2e9cf17

MONEY_REQUEST: 'request',
START_CHAT: 'startChat',
SEND_MONEY: 'sendMoney',
REFER_FRIEND: 'referralFriend',
SHARE_CODE: 'shareCode',

@ArekChr
Copy link
Contributor

ArekChr commented Dec 7, 2023

Thanks, @luacmartins, for the insights. Let's go ahead with the implementation like we talked about. @dukenv0307, do you need additional information or clarification to continue working on this fix?

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

dukenv0307 commented Dec 11, 2023

@ArekChr So what is the expected behavior when we open referral page from the report message link and click on back button or got it button?

@ArekChr
Copy link
Contributor

ArekChr commented Dec 11, 2023

@ArekChr So what is the expected behavior when we open referral page from the report message link and click on back button or got it button?

It depends on the link that is clicked. If the link includes only 'referral' as a subpath, it should lead back to the main page. If the 'referral' path includes additional segments like 'request/new/participants', it should navigate back to the specific page as indicated in the path. This navigation should be handled by React Router Dom.

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

dukenv0307 commented Dec 11, 2023

@ArekChr So we only change the route to make it clearer and keep the current logic to get the fallback route, right? because after we change route like this, referral/request this route is unnecessary,

@ArekChr
Copy link
Contributor

ArekChr commented Dec 11, 2023

@dukenv0307 Correct. Properly implementing routes is crucial for React Router to manage these scenarios effectively

@luacmartins, about the referral/request route – since it's just one page and not two, shouldn't we consider simplifying it to something like referralRequest for clarity and better route management?

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think we can remove this route because after we change the route like the explanation above, no page redirect to this route.

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ArekChr @luacmartins Any thought in this comment above?

@ArekChr
Copy link
Contributor

ArekChr commented Dec 14, 2023

I think we can remove this route because after we change the route like the explanation above, no page redirect to this route.

Could you elaborate? Do you mean removing referral from url?

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ArekChr I mean remove the old route of referral page and use the new route to make it clearer.

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

dukenv0307 commented Dec 19, 2023

@ArekChr got it button is removed and we use navigateBack by default. What should we do now.

@ArekChr
Copy link
Contributor

ArekChr commented Dec 19, 2023

@dukenv0307 I think go back button have the same purpose like got it button

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/request/new/participants/referral/request

@ArekChr Now when we create request money, the URL will contain transactionID and reportID in URL. So this approach isn't reasonable

@ArekChr
Copy link
Contributor

ArekChr commented Dec 19, 2023

@luacmartins What your thoughts? Do we still need referral request under new.expensify.com/create/request/participants/{transactionID}/{reportID}/referralRequest url?

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I think we do

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ArekChr In this PR we are trying to go back to the participant page even we reload or not right. If yes, I think this bug is out of the scope of this issue. If not, I think we can close the PR now because we're using goBack function when clicking on the back button now.

@Beamanator Beamanator requested a review from situchan January 31, 2024 12:31
@Beamanator
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for volunteering to take over review @situchan

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

@dukenv0307 please fix conflict. the branch is very behind

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

situchan commented Feb 5, 2024

@dukenv0307 please fix conflict. the branch is very behind

bump ^
6.4k commits are behind at this moment 😮

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

@situchan Merged main and add a new solution.

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

situchan commented Feb 12, 2024

Please resolve conflict

Screenshot 2024-02-13 at 8 30 06 PM

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

Please merge main again. Lint is fixed just now in #36423

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

@situchan updated.

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

situchan commented Feb 15, 2024

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 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(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 form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label 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

Android: Native
android.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
mchrome.mov
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
msafari.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mov

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

Please pull main again. 1.4k commits are behind

@dukenv0307
Copy link
Contributor Author

@situchan Updated.

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

I checked previous discussions for possible regressions but I think they're fine and agree out of scope.

@situchan
Copy link
Contributor

@dukenv0307 please add context behind this change:

change

Copy link
Contributor

@situchan situchan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Latest changes LGTM

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from Beamanator February 19, 2024 11:30
@Beamanator Beamanator merged commit 6e04d28 into Expensify:main Feb 19, 2024
16 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/Beamanator in version: 1.4.43-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.43-20 🚀

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.

6 participants