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

Use new Search query syntax when calling api #46481

Merged

Conversation

Kicu
Copy link
Contributor

@Kicu Kicu commented Jul 30, 2024

Details

  • Use the new query syntax when calling /search api endpoint
  • all the base values and filter values are being send as stringified json AST query format, and filters are now expected to work
  • Bugfix: I noticed that our sorting broke slightly after new query syntax ([Search v2] [App] Use new query syntax #45617) because when clicking on column name we rebuilt the query, but ignored the filters
  • since this PR only modifies fetching logic I provided only video for web; no UI or styling was affected

NOTE: there is bug on backend right now that only returns first page of results and ignores offset. @luacmartins is aware and PR fixing this is in progress. When reviewing please temporarily ignore that backend returns offset: 0.

Fixed Issues

$ #46684
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  • go to /search/filters and choose some filters, click ViewResults
  • verify that when /search request is sent, payload has an object with all the filter values inside
  • verify that search results are correctly returned and displayed
  • (temporary) ignore that lazy loading/pagination doesn't work as this is being fixed on backend
  • click on column headers and test that sorting works and correct params are sent inside query when calling api

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • go to /search/filters and choose some filters, click ViewResults
  • verify that when /search request is sent, payload has an object with all the filter values inside
  • verify that search results are correctly returned and displayed
  • verify that sorting works

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: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
rec-web-query-api.mp4
MacOS: Desktop

@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kicu commented Jul 30, 2024

@luacmartins this is just a draft but there is 1 issue with offset that I need your help with.
Question: what is the proper way to send offset to api now, that we moved offset out of the parser.

Problems right now:

  1. If I send offset wrapped inside the AST query then backend seems to ignore it - that is I always get first page.
Screenshot 2024-07-30 at 12 28 06 Screenshot 2024-07-30 at 12 19 32
  1. BUT if I instead send it on top level backend call - I get an endless Search loop, because regardless of offset value api always returns hasMoreResults: true and app keeps refetching data.
screee
rec-offset.mp4

Take a look at this on your end and tell us what is the preferred way to send offset.

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

@Kicu the way you described in 1 is the correct way to send it. I noticed that we have a bug in the backend that's not correctly parsing the new offset input. I'll work on a fix for that.

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

I have a PR up that fixes the bug. I'll let you know once that's deployed and fixed. For now, please continue with option 1.

@Kicu Kicu marked this pull request as ready for review July 31, 2024 10:10
@Kicu Kicu requested a review from a team as a code owner July 31, 2024 10:10
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from rayane-djouah and removed request for a team July 31, 2024 10:10
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2024

@rayane-djouah 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]

@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kicu commented Jul 31, 2024

super simple and ready for review

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

rayane-djouah commented Jul 31, 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
Screen.Recording.2024-08-01.at.12.16.07.PM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-08-01.at.12.11.27.PM.mov
iOS: Native
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-08-01.at.12.01.44.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.15.Pro.Max.-.2024-08-01.at.11.55.33.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari Screenshot 2024-08-01 at 12 22 09 PM
Screen.Recording.2024-08-01.at.11.48.21.AM.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-08-01.at.11.55.45.AM.mov

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

Bug (Regression): Expenses are not grouped into IOU reports (in "Shared", "Drafts", and "Finished" tabs), and some expenses are missing (this is already known based on the above). There are differences between the staging and development versions. Please look at the screenshots below for both versions:

1- "Shared" Results:

2- "Drafts" Results:

3- "Finished" Results:

@luacmartins luacmartins self-requested a review July 31, 2024 12:33
@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

Taking a look to see if my backend PR will solve the issue above

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, I see the issue. The backend is returning the wrong type. I put up a PR with a temporary fix until we convert the frontend to use expense type, instead of transaction and report

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

@rayane-djouah for now, we can continue review assuming the issue is resolved.

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

rayane-djouah commented Jul 31, 2024

@Kicu - Do you know why the search API request runs twice (with the same payload) every time I open the page or filter the expenses?

Screenshot 2024-07-31 at 2 46 58 PM

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

I've noticed that too and it has been an issue on main. I'll create an issue to fix that

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

Created issue here for the duplicate requests

@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kicu commented Jul 31, 2024

isn't the double call simply because of StrictMode and it's expected? and it will never happen in prod? I think we can leave it be.
Usually double calls like this one could be a sign of some possible problems with React, but I think since its only initial call for us we can just ignore it. This is what StrictMode is supposed to be doing

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

rayane-djouah commented Jul 31, 2024

isn't the double call simply because of StrictMode and it's expected? and it will never happen in prod? I think we can leave it be. Usually double calls like could be a sign of some possible problems with React, but I think since its only initial call for us we can just ignore it

Oh, that makes sense. I forgot about Strict Mode! 😄

I just tested it with Strict Mode disabled, and the duplicate requests is not happening 👍

@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kicu commented Jul 31, 2024

Oh and btw I've found a bug where our logic displaying sorting no longer makes sense and Im fixing it. Will push some new code in like ~15minutes, and then you can re-check.
I had to refactor a bunch of functions that build query strings but I think it makes for a much simpler code now

@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kicu commented Jul 31, 2024

@rayane-djouah @luacmartins some context for newest commit:

  • when we click on header we called the onSort function which now has to rebuild the whole query (after new syntax was introduced) and change the value of sortBy and/or sortOrder.
  • however we had no advanced filters when @adamgrzybowski was working on this, hence his function: buildSearchQueryString completely ignored filters, which means when sorting we were cutting out any filters from URL
  • I fixed this function and also aligned a few other functions so that we try to use the queryJSON object most of the time

Hope that makes it clear. All this parsing logic is still a bit complex 😅 but I think we will simplify it further, we're just learning which functions we really need in the code

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

Nice. Thanks for catching that! It seems like TS checks are failing though

@@ -170,15 +168,10 @@ function Search({queryJSON, policyIDs, isCustomQuery}: SearchProps) {
const sortedData = SearchUtils.getSortedSections(type, data, sortBy, sortOrder);

const onSortPress = (column: SearchColumnType, order: SortOrder) => {
const currentSearchParams = SearchUtils.getCurrentSearchParams();
const currentQueryJSON = SearchUtils.buildSearchQueryJSON(currentSearchParams.q, policyIDs);
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Kicu Kicu Jul 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note: I removed this because it was super redundant. We already have the parsed queryJSON object in this component's props. Instead of using it we were getting the params and parsing them once again which didn't add anything to this function.

@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kicu commented Jul 31, 2024

TS fixed

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

@Kicu @luacmartins The filtering by policyIDs is currently broken. Should we leave it as is and address it in #46592, or should we implement a temporary fix here?

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

That's a regression, we could keep sending the policyID as a temporary solution. The real fix will be implemented as part of #46592

@luacmartins luacmartins mentioned this pull request Aug 1, 2024
50 tasks
@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kicu commented Aug 1, 2024

@rayane-djouah @luacmartins I pushed a fix and policyIDs are now being sent the old way and the filtering seems to be working.

rec-web-policyids.mp4

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

@Kicu - Did you push your latest changes? I see that we're still not sending the policyIDs

@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Kicu commented Aug 1, 2024

@rayane-djouah sorry 😅 Indeed forgot to push, its ok now

@@ -134,19 +137,6 @@ function Search({queryJSON, policyIDs, isCustomQuery}: SearchProps) {
setDeleteExpensesConfirmModalVisible(true);
};

useEffect(() => {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this was a duplicate of useEffect in line 96 - probably someone made a mistake when refactoring

Copy link
Contributor

@rayane-djouah rayane-djouah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM and tests well apart from this bug

Copy link
Contributor

@luacmartins luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! The remaining bug will be fixed after the next API deploy today.

@luacmartins luacmartins merged commit 207365c into Expensify:main Aug 1, 2024
15 of 16 checks passed
@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

rayane-djouah commented Aug 1, 2024

@luacmartins - Could you please create a payment issue for this PR? Thank you!
(the linked issue #45026 is for PR #45407)
Process: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C02NK2DQWUX/p1721843458370249?thread_ts=1721843446.947239&cid=C02NK2DQWUX

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 1, 2024

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

Created here

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 2, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.0.16-0 🚀

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

@rayane-djouah
Copy link
Contributor

The bug is fixed after the API deploy 🚀

Screenshot 2024-08-02 at 11 56 44 AM

@dangrous
Copy link
Contributor

dangrous commented Aug 2, 2024

oh hai! We've got this deploy blocker - #46720 - which seems very related (sort order doesn't actually change anything); I just tried the behavior on the production branch and it still is incorrect, so I think it's either a backend issue or a regression that wasn't caught before. Butttttt feels like you all might have some insight into a fix! @luacmartins do you think it might be backend? Did we merge something recently?

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 6, 2024

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.0.16-8 🚀

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.

5 participants