[No QA] [Reassure] Sign in base perf flow #34228

gedu · 2024-01-10T12:16:02Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #33229
PROPOSAL: -

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-01-15T15:21:30Z

@cubuspl42 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]

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-15T15:29:12Z

@gedu I can see you're not assigned to the solved issue (#33229); neither am I. Are you taking the issue over from the original assignee? Would you like to shortly comment this one the issue, if that's the case?

gedu · 2024-01-17T07:48:36Z

@cubuspl42 oh yeah, we split the work to help Olimpia, #33229 is a big ticket with sub-tickets, should I comment there that we are working on this?

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-17T08:49:29Z

@gedu Yeah, let's do that to keep track of who's responsible for which tasks

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-17T08:51:27Z

Actually, as the issue is complex, as you say, could you fill the "Details" section with a (possibly short) summary of what is done in the scope of this PR?

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-17T09:00:09Z

tests/perf-test/SignInPage.perf-test.js

+import * as TestHelper from '../utils/TestHelper';
+import waitForBatchedUpdates from '../utils/waitForBatchedUpdates';
+import wrapOnyxWithWaitForBatchedUpdates from '../utils/wrapOnyxWithWaitForBatchedUpdates';
+


I assume that there's no easy or conventional way to make this .perf-test file a TypeScript one?

I can try for sure, will double check if it is a must

From the TS team, they told me it is optional

I just checked, and the existing perf-tests are roughly 50% TypeScript.

I think this is not good just having the general consistency practices in mind; we should decide to use either (preferably TypeScript)

As the general tendency in the project is to migrate things to TypeScript, not add more JS when TypeScript is already used somewhere, I'll ask to rewrite this to TypeScript; sorry.

I guess it seems it depends if the tested components are in TS, if we can write this in TS now @gedu @OlimpiaZurek lets do it, but if not fine to keep it js until the dependencies are ready

Does it give type errors to use the not-yet-migrated stuff, or just a bunch of anys flying around?

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-17T09:03:20Z

tests/utils/collections/userAccount.ts

+        isSAMLEnabled: false,
+        isLoading: false,
+        requiresTwoFactorAuth: false,
+    } as Account;


Is the cast really necessary?

It isn't, just helped me at first with auto-complete

Then remove it, please! Don't ever leave unnecessary casts.

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-17T09:07:06Z

Please fill the "Tests" section. We changed both the app code and added tests. How did you check that this works? What is another engineer supposed to do to reproduce your actions?

Please fill the "QA Steps". Does this project depend on QA at all? If no, then write "No QA".

Please add at least one video, can be for the "MacOS: Chrome / Safari" platform. This serves as proof that the PR author actually did the first phase of testing, increasing our confidence that the changes are adequately tested.

gedu · 2024-01-18T17:05:15Z

Please fill the "Tests" section. We changed both the app code and added tests. How did you check that this works? What is another engineer supposed to do to reproduce your actions?

Please fill the "QA Steps". Does this project depend on QA at all? If no, then write "No QA".

Please add at least one video, can be for the "MacOS: Chrome / Safari" platform. This serves as proof that the PR author actually did the first phase of testing, increasing our confidence that the changes are adequately tested.

I'm asking Olimpia who is in charge of the ticket what should be the expected steps, and what kind of information should I add.

gedu · 2024-01-19T09:00:51Z

@cubuspl42 I asked Olimpia, and there is no need of testing, reproduction steps and videos. Sorry for the missing information, learning the process.
@mountiny can you check this reassure test

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-19T09:13:04Z

tests/perf-test/SignInPage.perf-test.js

+import * as TestHelper from '../utils/TestHelper';
+import waitForBatchedUpdates from '../utils/waitForBatchedUpdates';
+import wrapOnyxWithWaitForBatchedUpdates from '../utils/wrapOnyxWithWaitForBatchedUpdates';
+


I just checked, and the existing perf-tests are roughly 50% TypeScript.

I think this is not good just having the general consistency practices in mind; we should decide to use either (preferably TypeScript)

As the general tendency in the project is to migrate things to TypeScript, not add more JS when TypeScript is already used somewhere, I'll ask to rewrite this to TypeScript; sorry.

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-19T09:14:21Z

tests/utils/collections/userAccount.ts

+        isSAMLEnabled: false,
+        isLoading: false,
+        requiresTwoFactorAuth: false,
+    } as Account;


Then remove it, please! Don't ever leave unnecessary casts.

mountiny · 2024-01-19T15:24:15Z

tests/perf-test/SignInPage.perf-test.js

+import * as TestHelper from '../utils/TestHelper';
+import waitForBatchedUpdates from '../utils/waitForBatchedUpdates';
+import wrapOnyxWithWaitForBatchedUpdates from '../utils/wrapOnyxWithWaitForBatchedUpdates';
+


I guess it seems it depends if the tested components are in TS, if we can write this in TS now @gedu @OlimpiaZurek lets do it, but if not fine to keep it js until the dependencies are ready

tests/perf-test/SignInPage.perf-test.js

src/CONST.ts

gedu · 2024-01-23T16:50:05Z

@mountiny All good now, I changed the type to support null, given that it is being used on some parts of the project

cubuspl42 · 2024-01-24T12:05:28Z

@cubuspl42 I asked Olimpia, and there is no need of testing, reproduction steps and videos. Sorry for the missing information, learning the process.

@mountiny Do you confirm this? Does it mean that I also should just review the code?

mountiny · 2024-01-24T12:19:42Z

@cubuspl42 Yes, sorry for the confusion, all the perf tests PRs did not have c+ review since there is nothing to test and the code is more about mocking correct data

mountiny

Thanks @gedu! The test looks solid, lets be on a look out for any flakiness

mountiny · 2024-01-24T12:24:16Z

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

N/A

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

OSBotify · 2024-01-24T12:33:20Z

✋ 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 · 2024-01-25T09:06:52Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.4.32-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-01-29T19:06:37Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 1.4.32-5 🚀

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

Sign in reassure flow

518087c

gedu marked this pull request as ready for review January 15, 2024 15:21

gedu requested a review from a team as a code owner January 15, 2024 15:21

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team January 15, 2024 15:21

melvin-bot bot requested a review from cubuspl42 January 15, 2024 15:21

cubuspl42 mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2024

[Performance] Implement more reassure tests #33229

Closed

34 tasks

cubuspl42 reviewed Jan 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

gedu changed the title ~~[Reassure] Sign in base perf flow~~ [Reassure] [No QA] Sign in base perf flow Jan 19, 2024

cubuspl42 suggested changes Jan 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

mountiny changed the title ~~[Reassure] [No QA] Sign in base perf flow~~ [No QA] [Reassure] Sign in base perf flow Jan 19, 2024

mountiny reviewed Jan 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

mountiny assigned gedu Jan 19, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into edu/reassure_sign_in

5abcdd2

gedu commented Jan 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/CONST.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Add null support to errors instead of changing the value

a0c1445

mountiny approved these changes Jan 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

mountiny merged commit 864e697 into Expensify:main Jan 24, 2024
15 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jan 25, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-01-25 #35138

Closed

48 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[No QA] [Reassure] Sign in base perf flow #34228

[No QA] [Reassure] Sign in base perf flow #34228

gedu commented Jan 10, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Jan 15, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 15, 2024

gedu commented Jan 17, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 17, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

cubuspl42 Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

gedu Jan 18, 2024

gedu Jan 18, 2024

cubuspl42 Jan 19, 2024

mountiny Jan 19, 2024

cubuspl42 Jan 22, 2024

cubuspl42 Jan 17, 2024

gedu Jan 18, 2024

cubuspl42 Jan 19, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

gedu commented Jan 18, 2024

gedu commented Jan 19, 2024

cubuspl42 Jan 19, 2024

cubuspl42 Jan 19, 2024

mountiny Jan 19, 2024

gedu commented Jan 23, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 24, 2024

mountiny commented Jan 24, 2024

mountiny left a comment

mountiny commented Jan 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

OSBotify commented Jan 24, 2024

OSBotify commented Jan 25, 2024

OSBotify commented Jan 29, 2024

[No QA] [Reassure] Sign in base perf flow #34228

[No QA] [Reassure] Sign in base perf flow #34228

Conversation

gedu commented Jan 10, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Jan 15, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 15, 2024

gedu commented Jan 17, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 17, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 17, 2024 • edited Loading

cubuspl42 Jan 17, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cubuspl42 commented Jan 17, 2024 • edited Loading

gedu commented Jan 18, 2024

gedu commented Jan 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gedu commented Jan 23, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 24, 2024

mountiny commented Jan 24, 2024

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny commented Jan 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

OSBotify commented Jan 24, 2024

OSBotify commented Jan 25, 2024

OSBotify commented Jan 29, 2024

cubuspl42 commented Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

cubuspl42 Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

cubuspl42 commented Jan 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Jan 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading