Fix validation code not sending on initial page load.

[wildan-m]

Details

Fix initial code validation in contact method and 2FA screen for PR.

Fixed Issues

$ #43359
PROPOSAL: #43359 (comment)

Tests

1. Login to as a new user
2. Go to profile settings --> Contact Methods
3. Wait for the magic code to arrive
4. Press Back <
5. Re-Select Contact Method
6. Verify that magic code only sent once

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Login to as a new user
2. Make network offline
3. Go to profile settings --> Contact Methods
4. Make network online
5. Wait for the magic code to arrive
6. Press Back <
7. Re-Select Contact Method
8. Verify that magic code only sent once

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

QA Steps

Same as Test

• 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

Kapture.2024-09-05.at.11.33.49.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Kapture.2024-09-05.at.11.36.52.mp4

iOS: Native

Kapture.2024-09-05.at.11.21.45.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Kapture.2024-09-05.at.11.24.59.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Kapture.2024-09-05.at.11.27.11.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Kapture.2024-09-05.at.11.39.06.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@allroundexperts 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]

[mountiny]

@wildan-m there are conflicts

@allroundexperts what is your eta for the review?

[wildan-m]

The conflict is resolved

[allroundexperts]

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.2024-09-09.at.2.06.41.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-09-09.at.2.03.49.AM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-09-09.at.2.02.09.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-09-09.at.1.59.53.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-09-09.at.1.53.13.AM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-09-09.at.1.55.56.AM.mov

[allroundexperts]

@wildan-m If I repeat the steps, I can get the validation messages again:

Screen.Recording.2024-08-29.at.5.07.19.AM.mov

[wildan-m]

@allroundexperts I added test steps 4-6 that seem reasonable, but this code intentionally resets the validateCodeSent state on each mount

App/src/pages/settings/Profile/Contacts/ContactMethodDetailsPage.tsx

Line 139 in 8870d60

User.resetContactMethodValidateCodeSentState(contactMethod);

Depending on the expected outcome, we can either eliminate the extra test steps or delete this code.

[wildan-m]

@mountiny What is the expected behavior when revisiting the validation page?

[wildan-m]

@allroundexperts @mountiny bump for confirmation.

#48047 (comment)

Should we re-send on each page load?

[allroundexperts]

I think @mountiny would be able to answer that.

[mountiny]

Hmmm, I am not sure; I don't think it is best to call it every time the page is navigated. Could we check if the login.validateCodeSent is true and only if its not, then send it.

Then require the user to click the request button

[wildan-m]

@mountiny Thanks for your confirmation. in that case we can remove this useEffect.

@allroundexperts the PR has been updated

[mountiny]

@wildan-m this flow was not slightly changed so we require the magic code also for the primary's login

Can you retest this flow with latest main merged?

[wildan-m]

Can you retest this flow with latest main merged?

@mountiny sure, I found flicker in re-sent message and noticeable in iOS, but it has been fixed. Currently conducting more tests and will update the video soon

[wildan-m]

@mountiny @allroundexperts The video with latest main has been updated. #48047 (comment)

[allroundexperts]

Why is this change needed @wildan-m? This doesn't seem to be related to your changes.

[wildan-m]

@allroundexperts did you mean adding validateCodeSentIsPressedRef ? without that, the message Link has been re-sent would be shown on the initial load.

[allroundexperts]

I mean all of the changes in these files. It looks to me they are not needed. How were they working previously?

[wildan-m]

@allroundexperts

Before: The requestContactMethodValidateCode function is not triggered upon the initial page load, resulting in the validateCodeSent variable not being updated. It is only updated when the magicCodeNotReceived button is clicked, allowing validateCodeSent to solely indicate whether a magic code has been sent. Additionally, validateCodeSent is reset to false each time the component is mounted.

After: The function requestContactMethodValidateCode is invoked on each page call if validateCodeSent is false. When this function is called, validateCodeSent is changed to true. On the initial page load of BaseValidateCodeForm.tsx, the message Link has been re-sent will be displayed. We cannot rely solely on validateCodeSent because its value is modified before the page call.

[wildan-m]

@allroundexperts bump #48047 (comment)

[allroundexperts]

Looks good!

[mountiny]

@wildan-m @allroundexperts sorry for this taking a bit longer, the changes look good to me, we started to use the validation page for adding secondary login. Can you validate that adding secondary login works on this PR as well please?

[wildan-m]

@mountiny In my video, the secondary login test at the end seemed to work as expected.

[mountiny]

@wildan-m nice, I will also check the the reveal virtual card details flow works

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 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/48047/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/48047/index.html
Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/48047/NewExpensify.dmg	https://48047.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[mountiny]

@wildan-m can you check the wallet page? unfortunately its hard for you to test but I am not getting the validation code on this branch to reveal the card details. That is the Reveal details on the card page

[wildan-m]

@mountiny there are three BaseValidateCodeForm

1. signing
2. Contact
3. ValidateCodeActionModal (seems this is recently added)

We are currently focused on the second BaseValidateCodeForm, the first one seems not require change. The third one is not directly called from route but mounted in modal, in that case current solution will not working, we need to implement useEffect solution.

Should we include the recently added third item in this PR, even though it's a bit difficult to test? If so, how can we simplify the testing process?

[grgia]

Should we include the recently added third item in this PR, even though it's a bit difficult to test? If so, how can we simplify the testing process?

Just saw this. I think we should- both @mountiny and I can test in the adhoc builds.
Thoughts @allroundexperts @wildan-m ?

[mountiny]

@grgia I think we should do this in a follow up, this is already fixing existing bugs. I will ask in slack

[OSBotify]

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

[mountiny]

Started a thread here

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.36-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.0.36-2 🚀

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