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

Bank account and Authorized payer buttons displayed instead of Connect bank account #40182

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
May 29, 2024

Conversation

ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor

Details

Everytime we toggle "Make or track payments" we set the achAccount: {reimburser: reimburserEmail} and the UI ends up looking like we have a bank account added because of this hasVBA check, when we don't actually have a bank account added yet.

To fix this we changed the hasVBA to check when we actually have a BA by checking for bankAccountID, additionally added the isLoadingWorkspaceReimbursement for the SetWorkspaceReimbursement call in order to show a loading spinner when we toggle "Make or track payments", instead of having the UI jump from the "Connect bank account" button to "Bank account" and "Authorized payer" buttons.

Small refactor: added shouldShowBankAccount variable because there were 3 occurances of this check.

Fixed Issues

$ #39947
PROPOSAL: #39947 (comment)

Tests

  1. Create a new workspace.
  2. Go to Workspace > More features and enable Workflows
  3. Go to Workspace > Workflows and under Make or track payments tap on Connect bank account.
  4. Go back.
  5. Disable Make or track payments then enable it again.
  6. Verify that only the Connect bank account button is visible.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

TLDR: same as Tests.

  1. Create a new workspace.
  2. Go to Workspace > More features and enable Workflows
  3. Go to Workspace > Workflows and under Make or track payments tap on Connect bank account.
  4. Go back.
  5. Disable Make or track payments then enable it again.
  6. Verify that only the Connect bank account button is visible.

QA Steps

TLDR: same as Tests.

  1. Create a new workspace.
  2. Go to Workspace > More features and enable Workflows
  3. Go to Workspace > Workflows and under Make or track payments tap on Connect bank account.
  4. Go back.
  5. Disable Make or track payments then enable it again.
  6. Verify that only the Connect bank account button is visible.

Additional tests from PR:

Preconditions: Having a policy with VBA and some Admins.

Happy path:

  1. Open Settings > Workspaces > > Workflows.
  2. See that you have an Authorized payer.
  3. Click on the Authorized payer and change it to a different one.
  4. Now, change it to one that has a display name set and check that the display name is shown under Authorized payer.

Error path:

  1. Open Settings > Workspaces > > Workflows.
  2. See that you have an Authorized payer.
  3. Go offline and change the Authorized payer.
  4. In a different tab/browser demote the Authorized payer from step 3 to Member.
  5. Go back to the offline tab and get back online, the Authorized payer should get reverted to the previous one and there should be a red dot next to it indicating that it could not update.
  • 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
android-mweb.mov
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios-mweb.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
without-ba.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mov

@ikevin127 ikevin127 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 12, 2024 18:36
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from ishpaul777 and removed request for a team April 12, 2024 18:36
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 12, 2024

@ishpaul777 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]

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

I think this looks pretty good, cc @Expensify/design (you too Tom) for extra eyes on the loading spinner pattern here.

@dubielzyk-expensify
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good to me as well

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

I think this looks pretty good, cc @Expensify/design (you too Tom) for extra eyes on the loading spinner pattern here.

Yeah, I think the loading spinner is fine. It would be great if we could minimise that time to load, but this works for sure.

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

♻ Fixed conflict by removing unused type export ACHAccount, ready for review!

It would be great if we could minimise that time to load, but this works for sure.

@trjExpensify We can involve BE for this in a separate task regarding the SetWorkspaceReimbursement call, and I'd also make sure this bug that I found mentioned in #39947 (comment) is looked into by BE if they're going to try and minimise time to load for the SetWorkspaceReimbursement call.

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry it took me a while to get to this, reviewing now

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

ishpaul777 commented Apr 16, 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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
Record_2024-05-17-16-20-18.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
Record_2024-05-17-16-48-49.mp4
iOS: Native
trim.0E6E945D-D25B-49BD-85BB-2E8223C1DD75.MOV
iOS: mWeb Safari
trim.46D089D1-2583-4D37-8C3A-74128F63ADAD.MOV
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

BA added- (with and without internet)

Screen.Recording.2024-05-17.at.1.17.46.AM-1.mov

No BA added - (with and without internet)

Screen.Recording.2024-05-17.at.12.25.37.AM.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-05-17.at.5.00.55.PM.mov

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

ishpaul777 commented Apr 16, 2024

bug: Infinite loading when toggling the button offline.

and loading time in general is too long, i have never seen this type of loading pattern (loading for everytime user toggle on) anywhere in App we generally set all necesary optimistc data to avoid this

Screen.Recording.2024-04-16.at.5.26.43.PM.mov

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ishpaul777 Good catch, I'll address the offline case of the spinner.

Regarding the seemingly long SetWorkspaceReimbursement call time to fulfil, this was addressed above in #40182 (comment), and as far as this fix is concerned we're fine with that.

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ishpaul777 Fixed the infinite loading while offline bug. Let me know if you find any other issues with this PR!

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

♻ Fixed conflict by removing unused type export ACHAccount, ready for review!

It would be great if we could minimise that time to load, but this works for sure.

@trjExpensify We can involve BE for this in a separate task regarding the SetWorkspaceReimbursement call, and I'd also make sure this bug that I found mentioned in #39947 (comment) is looked into by BE if they're going to try and minimise time to load for the SetWorkspaceReimbursement call.

Ah, interesting. @lakchote might have some insight on that!

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

@ikevin127 Can you please merge main quickly

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ishpaul777

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

ishpaul777 commented Apr 17, 2024

instead of having the UI jump from the "Connect bank account" button to "Bank account" and "Authorized payer" buttons.

Thinking more about the loader it just feels off pattern, can you please share a recording for the "jump" that you mentioned in PR decription and do we get this everytime. I believe the loading is dependent on user network condition more than how much backend is optimized right? so in case user network is slow it just have long loader, which is exactly we want to avoid with have optimisticData set for every request

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikevin127 commented Apr 17, 2024

Indeed, ultimately the Workflow's no-BA / BA flow should be re-considered from a BE point of view and fixed properly on the FE side as all the proposals from this issue (including mine) are undesired workarounds (IMO) that don't really address the flow completely from the following points of view:
- seamless UI/UX
- happy path / unhappy path
- offline / online transiton (optimistically)
- BE response time regarding BA details (too slow currently)
- correct SetWorkspaceReimbursementcall (currently it's not doing what it's supposed to do [set reimbursment], but doing extra things besides that), see #39947 (comment) bullet number 2 for more details)

cc @lakchote @ishpaul777

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

ishpaul777 commented Apr 20, 2024

FYI i'll be OOO until tuesday and will be partially available after that until 29 April.

Status for the PR: I feel the usage of loader here is not our pattern so i am not inclined to approve it, If anyone disagrees i'd love to hear a different POV, as of this comment from @ikevin127 i do agree there's a lot going on with command.

correct SetWorkspaceReimbursementcall (currently it's not doing what it's supposed to do [set reimbursment], but doing extra things besides that), see #39947 (comment) bullet number 2 for more details)

we have 2 ways to move this forward (that i could think of)

  1. Move with loading indicator even if its not our pattern (my pov why i believe this: Bank account and Authorized payer buttons displayed instead of Connect bank account #40182 (comment))

I believe the loading is dependent on user network condition more than how much backend is optimized right? so in case user network is slow it just have long loader, which is exactly we want to avoid with have optimisticData set for every request

  1. Remove the loading indicator, and let the "jump" stay as it is (i am not what exactly is the "jump" @ikevin127 refered to, it would be good to have a reference video : ) or steps to reproduce it. )

and the other one Kevin suggested #40182 (comment)

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

What's going on here? We back to finish it off?

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikevin127 commented May 8, 2024

@trjExpensify If we want something solid here, it requires BE changes. Otherwise, I think FE only changes will only break the current functionality instead of actually improving the flow.

For more details see #40182 (comment). Additionally, I don't think any of the two options mentioned by #40182 (comment) are viable because we have BE related issues when it comes to the flow (mentioned in #40182 (comment)).

@lakchote
Copy link
Contributor

lakchote commented May 9, 2024

Status for the PR: I feel the usage of loader here is not our pattern so i am not inclined to approve it, If anyone disagrees i'd love to hear a different POV, as of this comment from @ikevin127 i do agree there's a lot going on with command.

The loader pattern was initially approved by @Expensify/design team here.

@Expensify/design could you please check @ishpaul777's comment here regarding the infinite loader scenario?

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

Why do we have to have an infinite loader when offline? Can't we do something like this?

image

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, I like Tom's suggestion.

@lakchote
Copy link
Contributor

@lakchote Can you help trigger a build for this PR so we can test this on real android devices ? This way we can hopefully move on with the review process!

Good idea, I've triggered a build and will let you know once it's ready.

Copy link
Contributor

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖 iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/40182/index.html https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/40182/index.html
Android iOS
Desktop 💻 Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/40182/NewExpensify.dmg https://40182.pr-testing.expensify.com
Desktop Web

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you @lakchote for build.

i was not able to reproduce with ADHOC and dev on real device. I am assuming there might be some issue with API at that time.

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

@Expensify/design This is ready for you guys to review 🙇

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Nice - are there updated screenshots for us to review?

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, reviewer checklist has the up to date videos for all platforms #40182 (comment)

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

In this screen, why does one row appear to be more faded out than the other?
CleanShot 2024-05-17 at 09 04 19@2x

Also, the two rows feel like they are too far apart. Is that something we can adjust here too?

: translate('workflowsPage.connectBankAccount')
}
description={bankDisplayName}
disabled={isOffline || !isPolicyAdmin}
Copy link
Contributor

@ishpaul777 ishpaul777 May 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In this screen, why does one row appear to be more faded out than the other?

it seems to done quite intentionally even before this PR. that is for the case when there's no optimistic pending action but user is offline.

Screenshot 2024-05-17 at 8 30 28 PM

we can add a check !policy?.pendingFields?.reimbursementChoice && isOffline to solve this

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Okay, I think we should not have it double-faded so let's definitely solve that

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note

  1. The first disabled grayed-out fade comes from the "Make or track payments" toggle when toggled while offline.
  2. The second one comes from Connect bank account / Bank account option which was and is disabled while offline.
  3. Authorized payer option is enabled while offline -> meaning the Authorized payer can be changed optimistically. This is why this one doesn't get double disabled grayed-out fade when "Make or track payments" is toggled while offline.

ishpaul777:

we can add a check !policy?.pendingFields?.reimbursementChoice && isOffline to solve this

I don't think this logic is good since it would break the logic mentioned at (2.) where Connect bank account / Bank account option was and is supposed to be disabled while offline.

shawnborton:

Okay, I think we should not have it double-faded so let's definitely solve that

To do this, instead I would use Connect bank account / Bank account option shouldGreyOutWhenDisabled to not have the 2nd gray-out fade applied to the option when already applied from "Make or track payments" toggle.

Similarly, we have to do the same for the OfflineWithFeedback wrapper of Authorized payer option (3.) we add:

shouldDisableOpacity={isOffline && policy?.pendingFields?.reimbursementChoice && policy?.pendingFields?.reimburser}

in order to not double gray-out the Authorized payer if already applied from "Make or track payments" toggle, when Authorized payer is changed while offline. This is how it would look in all scenarios:

  1. Without Bank account added:
Offline (can't add / change Connect bank account option)
noba-offline
Offline (with "Make or track payments" Toggled (optimistically))
noba-offline-toggled
  1. With Bank account added:
Offline (can't add / change Bank account option)
ba-offline
Offline (with "Make or track payments" Toggled (optimistically))
ba-offline-toggled-1
Offline (with "Make or track payments" Toggled + Authorized payer changed (optimistically))
ba-offline-toggled-2
Offline (with "Make or track payments" Toggled + Authorized payer changed (optimistically) and hover on Authorized payer)
ba-offline-toggled-2-hover
shouldDisableOpacity={isOffline && policy?.pendingFields?.reimbursementChoice && policy?.pendingFields?.reimburser}

^ - Writing it like this is specifically important for the below case, since we don't want to NOT gray out Authorized payer when changed offline (optimistically) in case "Make or track payments" was NOT toggled, by only writing it like:
shouldDisableOpacity={policy?.pendingFields?.reimburser}
since that would NOT gray out the optimistically set Authorized payer, instead we want to gray it out, maintaining the pattern like so:

Offline (with "Make or track payments" Not Toggled + Authorized payer changed (optimistically))
ba-offline-non-toggled-changed-payer

Please let me know if we're in agreement with the changes mentioned above from a design / code POV.
Once agreed I'll push the changes!

cc @ishpaul777 @shawnborton

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 detailed investigation @ikevin127, code wise looks good to me 👍

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

Also, the two rows feel like they are too far apart. Is that something we can adjust here too?

Yeah! we can def. do minor style adjustment. Currently both Menuitems has padding top 12px and margin-top 16px. What should be the ideal

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Can we try the second menu item with no top margin? This way it's 12px + 12px away from the item above it.

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can we try the second menu item with no top margin? This way it's 12px + 12px away from the item above it.

Did this for second menu item, this are the results:

Before After
2nd-mt4 2nd-mt0

Please let me know if we're in agreement with the changes mentioned above. Once agreed I'll push the changes!

cc @shawnborton

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Did this for second menu item, this are the results:

Looks great!

@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ishpaul777 Just pushed changes from here and here. PR is ready for review!

Copy link
Contributor

@ishpaul777 ishpaul777 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from lakchote May 22, 2024 16:10
lakchote
lakchote previously approved these changes May 22, 2024
@ikevin127
Copy link
Contributor Author

@lakchote Are we merging this soon ? I synced w/ main because it had conflicts.

@lakchote
Copy link
Contributor

@lakchote Are we merging this soon ? I synced w/ main because it had conflicts.

There was a merge freeze. Now that it's been removed, I'm going to merge this.

@lakchote lakchote merged commit 1183a92 into Expensify:main May 29, 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/lakchote in version: 1.4.77-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.77-11 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.77-11 🚀

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
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants