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

Remove style prop from ToggleSettingOptionRow #42596

Merged

Conversation

s77rt
Copy link
Contributor

@s77rt s77rt commented May 24, 2024

@hayata-suenaga @trjExpensify @Expensify/design

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #42309
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  1. Go to workspace > Categories
  2. Click on Settings
  3. Verify that the switch label is not in bold
  4. Go to workspace > Workflows
  5. Verify that switch labels are not in bold
  6. Go to workspace > More features
  7. Verify that switch labels are not in bold
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests

QA Steps

Same as Tests

  • 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
Android: mWeb Chrome

Networking issue

iOS: Native ios
iOS: mWeb Safari mweb-safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari web
MacOS: Desktop desktop

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Design-wise this looks good to me

@s77rt s77rt marked this pull request as ready for review May 24, 2024 15:35
@s77rt s77rt requested a review from a team as a code owner May 24, 2024 15:35
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from parasharrajat and removed request for a team May 24, 2024 15:35
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented May 24, 2024

@parasharrajat 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]

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor Author

s77rt commented May 24, 2024

Straight styles changes, shouldn't require C+ review

@hayata-suenaga
Copy link
Contributor

hayata-suenaga commented May 24, 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 gonna rely on @s77rt's screenshots
  • 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: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

@hayata-suenaga
Copy link
Contributor

Should we merge this PR to the main now (we can ask for permission in the deployer channel) or we can wait until next week to merge this

Copy link
Contributor

@hayata-suenaga hayata-suenaga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

approving the PR 🟢

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

Please unassign me from the review as it is not needed.

@hayata-suenaga hayata-suenaga removed the request for review from parasharrajat May 28, 2024 17:28
@hayata-suenaga
Copy link
Contributor

checking if we can merge this PR (internal link)

@hayata-suenaga
Copy link
Contributor

confirmed that we can merge the PR 😄

@hayata-suenaga hayata-suenaga merged commit 8be7abe into Expensify:main May 28, 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/hayata-suenaga in version: 1.4.77-0 🚀

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

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

I think this might have caused a regression... for these toggle switches for our features, we didn't want to remove the bold text:
CleanShot 2024-05-30 at 10 45 56@2x

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

This is what it should look like:
CleanShot 2024-05-30 at 10 47 14@2x

CleanShot 2024-05-30 at 10 47 28@2x

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Although let's get @Expensify/design 's opinion here... do we like this new style better?
CleanShot 2024-05-30 at 10 47 53@2x

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor Author

s77rt commented May 30, 2024

Ah sorry! I thought that's what we wanted. I will raise a PR asap

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

All good, but let's confirm with @Expensify/design - maybe we want to keep it as-is 🤣

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

Haha, I don't mind it at all. Maybe the bolded features is a little more scannable though?

@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 ✅

@hayata-suenaga
Copy link
Contributor

ah sorry I didn't realized that I also changed toggle texts on the cards.

If we want to change that, I can also raise a RP 😄

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

I think I lean towards bringing the bold text back just for these feature toggles. @Expensify/design any one feel strongly for or against?

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

Don't feel strongly, let's bring 'em back!

@hayata-suenaga
Copy link
Contributor

#42998

@dubielzyk-expensify
Copy link
Contributor

I think I lean towards bringing the bold text back just for these feature toggles. @Expensify/design any one feel strongly for or against?

I'm okay with that. Most of the workspace edit sub screens uses bold, so it feels weird without it

@dannymcclain
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah I'm for bringing back the bold text on these ones. They feel different than our regular toggle switch rows, and because some of them have fields that appear beneath them once you enable them, the bold helps them stand out at the top level.

@hayata-suenaga
Copy link
Contributor

We brought the bold styling back to the switch texts on the card in this PR 😄

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.

8 participants