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

Bump react-native-live-markdown (use worklets) #53627

Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

s77rt
Copy link
Contributor

@s77rt s77rt commented Dec 5, 2024

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #52475
$ #45154
PROPOSAL: #52475 (comment)

Tests

  1. Open any chat
  2. Type ![test](https://camo.githubusercontent.com/4848d0f965f332077b77a1a0488c3e66b4769032104f4de6890bae218b4add8d/68747470733a2f2f70696373756d2e70686f746f732f69642f313036372f3230302f333030 )_test
  3. Verify the app doesn't lag or crash
  • 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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • 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
mweb-chrome.mov
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
mweb-safari.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mov
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mov

@s77rt s77rt marked this pull request as ready for review December 10, 2024 02:29
@s77rt s77rt requested a review from a team as a code owner December 10, 2024 02:29
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from ntdiary and removed request for a team December 10, 2024 02:29
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 10, 2024

@ntdiary 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]

@ntdiary
Copy link
Contributor

ntdiary commented Dec 10, 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 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.ts 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.
  • For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
  • 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
53627-android-native.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
53627-android-chrome.mp4
iOS: Native
53627-ios-native.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
53627-ios-safari.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
53627-mac-chrome.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
53627-mac-desktop.mp4

Copy link
Contributor

@Kicu Kicu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@s77rt you can now bump reanimated to 3.16.4 and we will no longer need the patch for 3.16.3, as this fix was released in 3.16.4 (https://github.com/software-mansion/react-native-reanimated/pull/6796/files#diff-f90ca94b2ac6e8ee3db468e6084e525e4930ce4f487a3cf55386155c304a6138R292)

If we bump it, we can drop the patch.

Also there were several versions of live-markdown released over the past 2 days, and a lot of small bugs were fixed there.
Do you mind bumping live-markdown to 0.1.204 0.1.205?
To my knowledge it will not require you to do any changes in the code, and we need some QA to test this bump anyways, so might as well bump to newest.

If it adds any extra work (something breaks) then I will handle this in my PR.

@ntdiary
Copy link
Contributor

ntdiary commented Dec 10, 2024

Hi, @s77rt, could you please confirm whether it can be reproduced? 😂

`function`
```js
Console.log('hello');
```
code.mp4

seems the js suffix will cause error?
image

@tomekzaw
Copy link
Contributor

tomekzaw commented Dec 10, 2024

@ntdiary As for the bug you've mentioned #53627 (comment):

  • Parsing blockquotes with some characters after opening triple backticks (in the same line) is broken
  • It is not a regression as it also happens on current prod (native iOS) – the formatting disappears if you do so (this is the expected "safe" way to handle such parsing errors)
  • The new behavior is that in dev mode you get a warning and error in the LogBox so you know there's some problem
  • I've already reported this as a bug in react-native-live-markdown repo:
  • Probably this needs to be fixed in expensify-common
  • I think this can be addressed separately (since from now on we'll be able to bump expensify-common in E/App independently from react-native-live-markdown) but perhaps this will also require change in parseExpensiMark function which currently still lives in react-native-live-markdown but we'd like to upstream it to E/App at some point in the future

@s77rt s77rt changed the title Bump react-native-live-markdown to 0.1.192 (LOOSE_URL_WEBSITE_REGEX rewrite) Bump react-native-live-markdown (use worklets) Dec 10, 2024
@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor Author

s77rt commented Dec 10, 2024

@Kicu Good call! Updated!

Comment on lines +15 to +17
// This is necessary so we don't send the entire CONST object to the worklet which could lead to performance issues
// https://docs.swmansion.com/react-native-reanimated/docs/guides/worklets/#capturing-closure
const ANIMATION_GYROSCOPE_VALUE = CONST.ANIMATION_GYROSCOPE_VALUE;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We no longer need this workaround since we already use react-native-reanimated to 3.16.4.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's not needed but we should do it. CONST is a huge object and it's creating unnecessary work.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Okay, sounds good.

Comment on lines 1 to 14
import {MarkdownTextInput} from '@expensify/react-native-live-markdown';
import type {parseExpensiMark} from '@expensify/react-native-live-markdown';

global.jsi_setMarkdownRuntime = jest.fn();
global.jsi_registerMarkdownWorklet = jest.fn();
global.jsi_unregisterMarkdownWorklet = jest.fn();

const parseExpensiMarkMock: typeof parseExpensiMark = () => {
'worklet';

return [];
};

export {MarkdownTextInput, parseExpensiMarkMock as parseExpensiMark};
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it okay if we have this mock here or should we move it to react-native-live-markdown somehow?

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 part of the mock can be moved. But I'm not sure about the react-native part. Maybe we can just avoid throwing an error if NativeLiveMarkdownModule is not available? (same as it was before). The global.jsi_setMarkdownRuntime check is probably enough

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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 the PR! Left couple of comments there.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do I need to wait for the above PR to be completed, and then start testing this PR?

Copy link
Contributor

@tomekzaw tomekzaw Dec 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, let's wait for that PR with the mock. I've asked my collegaues to review that PR (it looks good for me, just wanted another pair of eyes on it). I hope we can merge that PR today. Then we can bump here and ask for QA.

Copy link
Contributor

@tomekzaw tomekzaw Dec 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@s77rt I've just merged the PR introducing the mock to react-native-live-markdown (Expensify/react-native-live-markdown#578). Let's bump live-markdown to 0.1.207, remove mock in this PR and we should be ready to test.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done! This is ready for test

@Kicu
Copy link
Contributor

Kicu commented Dec 11, 2024

@ntdiary @s77rt about this bug in parsing codeblocks: #53627 (comment)

I updated the issue that Tomasz created, check here:
Expensify/react-native-live-markdown#571 (comment)

We can move forward with this PR, and we will bump live-markdown once codeblocks are fixed.

@ntdiary
Copy link
Contributor

ntdiary commented Dec 11, 2024

Only the Android app is still building, will fill the checklist soon. :D

Copy link
Contributor

@ntdiary ntdiary 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 dangrous December 11, 2024 13:48
@ntdiary
Copy link
Contributor

ntdiary commented Dec 11, 2024

image

Is the old version patch cached? 🤔

@pecanoro
Copy link
Contributor

I added #45154 to the list of issues since this PR is bumping the packages to solve that issue as well.

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor Author

s77rt commented Dec 11, 2024

@dangrous
Copy link
Contributor

triggered!

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor Author

s77rt commented Dec 11, 2024

@dangrous That failing test is a false positive. I don't know why it sometimes still see the old patch. Can you trigger it once again

@dangrous
Copy link
Contributor

Hm I can try - maybe need to merge main?

dangrous
dangrous previously approved these changes Dec 11, 2024
@dangrous
Copy link
Contributor

Okay great, that passed. Can we go ahead and merge, or are there any other moving pieces we need to wait for and or test for?

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor Author

s77rt commented Dec 11, 2024

Please hold. A patch has been removed recently and this PR is adding it again. Will remove it...

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor Author

s77rt commented Dec 11, 2024

It seems that the test failure is a regression from https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/50559/files#r1881064349

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
diff --git a/node_modules/react-native-reanimated/src/component/PerformanceMonitor.tsx b/node_modules/react-native-reanimated/src/component/PerformanceMonitor.tsx
index 38e3d39..9936670 100644

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need this newline?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, I just added it to have the reassure test instance see this as a file change and not just a rename but it didn't work. (also that part of the diff is ignored and is used as a comment section)

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor Author

s77rt commented Dec 11, 2024

@dangrous Should we just ignore the test here?

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.

6 participants