Improve Google Sign In error logging

[lindboe]

Details

@Julesssss reported that Google Sign-In was not working on ad hoc builds: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1692302447001879

Errors that didn't have specific handling weren't being logged properly. Update logging and print all status codes so we can also see errors we aren't specifically handling.

Fixed Issues

$ #7079
PROPOSAL: #7079 (comment)

Tests

1. Install the app to a device/an emulator with Play Services installed and a Google account signed in
2. Click the Google Sign-In button, then click the background to close the sign-in modal and go back
3. Check that the Log.info message for Google sign-in cancelled shows up
4. Edit the code to remove the if branch for the google sign-in error in src/components/SignInButtons/GoogleSignIn/index.native.js so that all errors use the Log.alert statement instead
5. Refresh the app and repeat step 2
6. See that the Log.alert for the cancellation error shows up, this time with an error code included in the message

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

n/a, not affected by offline status.

QA Steps

• 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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / 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 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 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 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
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  • 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 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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

n/a, no user-facing changes

[melvin-bot]

@shawnborton @0xmiroslav 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]

[Julesssss]

Changes are fine, can't test until tomorrow morning though

[Julesssss]

@lindboe we had a temporary issue with our AdHoc builds. Would you mind pulling main and merging it into your PR? Thanks

[lindboe]

Merged main 👍

[marcochavezf]

Run adhoc build again, the new QR codes will be available soon

[OSBotify]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this build in android and iOS. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/25446/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/25446/index.html
desktop 💻	web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/25446/NewExpensify.dmg	https://25446.pr-testing.expensify.com

[Julesssss]

Lol. Thanks, GSO, very helpful!

At least we have a code number:

[alrt] [Google Sign In] Error Code: 10. DEVELOPER_ERROR - {}

[0xmiros]

Lol. Thanks, GSO, very helpful!

At least we have a code number:

[alrt] [Google Sign In] Error Code: 10. DEVELOPER_ERROR - {}

Might be related to sha key mismatch

[Julesssss]

Perhaps we just need to add the AdHoc signing key to Google Cloud for the AdHoc app. Though I'm not sure if that even exists :/

[lindboe]

@Julesssss A signing key of some kind definitely exists, but it may not work the same way as prod.

Debug mode builds are given a generated key (https://developer.android.com/studio/publish/app-signing#debug-mode), so if adhoc builds are in debug mode, (which I would be surprised by, but it's not impossible), then the debug cert might be different per machine and I suppose that could cause problems? At the same time, I don't think that's likely, as that would cause issues testing debug development builds locally, which we've been able to do just fine with Google Sign In on Android.

But otherwise, a key of some kind does need to be provided for release builds.

When I looked last, the SHA-1 of the ad-hoc build I had was 14:66:BB:ED:3F:8A:DD:50:72:AA:02:66:86:B8:3B:43:19:FC:EC:0B. These docs also allow you to double-check that against a new APK if you'd like to confirm that it's consistent.

Are you able to access the Google cloud console to change the SHA-1 value for the adhoc app's OAuth config? Can't really do any harm to test new values if the current one isn't working.

[Julesssss]

Thanks for explaining.

Yeah, I'll create an issue for trying that AdHoc key.

[Julesssss]

I fixed the AdHoc SSO issue in the Google Console, but I think this improvement could still be merged to simplify debugging of future issues

[Julesssss]

I'm going to merge this. The PR checklist has changed since it was added, so I'm going to ignore that check.

[melvin-bot]

@Julesssss looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[Julesssss]

@Julesssss looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

#25446 (comment)

[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.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.3.84-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 1.3.84-10 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	skipped 🚫
🖥 desktop 🖥	skipped 🚫
🍎 iOS 🍎	skipped 🚫
🕸 web 🕸	skipped 🚫

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 1.3.84-10 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.3.85-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 1.3.85-4 🚀

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