@pecanoro @rushatgabhane One of you needs to 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]

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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / 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(themeColors.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 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

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

Merging! I tested it and it seems to be working well!

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

HI, just found that this merge may be actually redundant. We have already fixed this on #18536.

Oh well, both were happening at the same time, we should have caught this up when opening the bug reports. @s77rt I think maybe we just need to pay one bug report as it's exactly the same bug? Or do you think we should pay for both reports? We will be paying for both PRs though since the work is done already.

@pecanoro On another similar scenario (don't have link now) we ended up paying both reporters. But this one seems a little different since the bug reporter is the same. I think the bug bounty should be paid once ($250).

As for this PR, can you please revert it? Not only because it's redundant but it's following a "wrong" pattern: The login that we check here

But it's not, we check userLogin but submit addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber(userLogin)

We should have called addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber in line 83 so we submit what we check.

I am not sure if I am following properly. Are you saying we should move OptionsListUtils.addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber to line 83?

@pecanoro If the other PR didn't exist, yes we should have moved that to line 83.

A little more explanation on the wrong pattern here:

1. If we say that the input "abc" does not exist and we should add it as a contact, we should add "abc"
2. What we are doing here is:
3. If we say that the input "abc" does not exist and we should add it as a contact, we are adding a variant of "abc": we are calling addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber on "abc" which may change it. So we may add a "abcd" (a contact that already exists) and will fail in Auth.

Now the issue is fixed already calling addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber at any point is redundant.

@Pujan92 Let me know if that ^ explained my point better. Or if I should elaborate more.

@s77rt I think with only my change(wrong pattern as you mentioned) when we try to add the same phone number again it skips this part but it should not - due to the comparison of non-sms domain number with sms domain number. Logically it should navigate back from this condition but will not due to the above reason.

Can't we merge these 3 lines directly with OptionsListUtils.addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber(login) or we can't due to the replacement of special chars getPhoneNumberWithoutSpecialChars?

@Pujan92 I'm not sure you understood my point. Here is the workflow:

1. Make sure loginA does not exist
2. Add loginA

Here is what we are doing

1. Make sure loginA does not exist
2. Add loginB

@s77rt I understood your point and tried to provide an example for it(where it gets failed logically without any functional issue).

At this point I don't think it will fail. I just pointed it as a "wrong" pattern.

I meant if the other PR won't be there and only mine was merged then this logical issue may present. At this point, I agree it won't as we are adding the sms domain earlier to the given login value before the existence check within loginList. With that, I think we can revert this PR as seems not required now.

@Pujan92 Can you create a revert PR then? We will still issue payment anyways as all the work was done when we realized about the duplicate.

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 1.3.13-0 🚀

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.3.13-5 🚀