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

Fix no error shows when saving personal bank account that exist in workspace BA draft #39398

Conversation

bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor

@bernhardoj bernhardoj commented Apr 2, 2024

Details

In personal bank account page, the form key doesn't match the key we use to save the error (and loading state), so the error (and loading) is never shown. This PR fixes it by using the correct key.

Fixed Issues

$ #38518
PROPOSAL: #38518 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

Prerequisite: have an ongoing bank account setup in workspace bank account

  1. Go to Wallet > Add bank account > Personal bank account
  2. Select any bank and complete the plaid step
  3. Select Plaid Saving account (ends with 1111)
  4. Click Save
  5. Verify there is a loading indicator on the button
  6. Verify an error (Bank account can't be created...) is shown after the loading completes
  • 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
Screen.Recording.2024-04-02.at.18.25.56.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-04-02.at.19.53.49.mov
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-04-02.at.18.30.20.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-04-02.at.18.21.09.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-04-02.at.18.23.20.mov

@bernhardoj bernhardoj requested a review from a team as a code owner April 2, 2024 10:43
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from cubuspl42 and removed request for a team April 2, 2024 10:43
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 2, 2024

@cubuspl42 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]

@bernhardoj bernhardoj force-pushed the fix/38518-no-error-whne-try-to-save-existing-ba branch from 80fa57a to b014e37 Compare April 2, 2024 10:44
@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

I accidentally comitted unrelated files, so I force pushed.

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

bernhardoj commented Apr 2, 2024

I get too much attempt when testing on android mWeb. solved

I can't access the plaid sandbox on iOS native.
Screenshot 2024-04-02 at 18 32 16

@cubuspl42
Copy link
Contributor

TypeScript Checks

@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ function AddPersonalBankAccountPage({personalBankAccount, plaidData}: AddPersona
AddPersonalBankAccountPage.displayName = 'AddPersonalBankAccountPage';

export default withOnyx<AddPersonalBankAccountPageWithOnyxProps, AddPersonalBankAccountPageWithOnyxProps>({
// @ts-expect-error: ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT is conflicting with ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like the type is conflicting. We did this for all reimbursement account step.

export default withOnyx<PersonalInfoProps, PersonalInfoOnyxProps>({
// @ts-expect-error: ONYXKEYS.REIMBURSEMENT_ACCOUNT is conflicting with ONYXKEYS.FORMS.REIMBURSEMENT_ACCOUNT_FORM
reimbursementAccount: {
key: ONYXKEYS.REIMBURSEMENT_ACCOUNT,
},

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@blazejkustra Do you have any idea how we could solve this without expecting errors?

Copy link
Contributor

@blazejkustra blazejkustra Apr 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, we should not conflict onyx keys:

 /** Stores information about the active personal bank account being set up */
PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT: 'personalBankAccount',
FORMS: {
        PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT: 'personalBankAccountForm', // different than 'personalBankAccount'
        PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT_DRAFT: 'personalBankAccountFormDraft',
}

PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT and FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT should have different values. If not we have to use ts-expect-error 😒

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, but apparently, the backend expects this key to be personalBankAccount. This is the reason why we don't apply the *Form suffix to all keys.

I think we should do something systematic here. Either drop the assumption about unique keys or adjust the backend.

@blazejkustra Do you think the first one is possible/reasonable?
@Gonals How would you assess the difficulty of adjusting the backend?

I know that changing the backend because of the fronend typing might feel counterintuitive, but from my perspective, it's about designing a consistent Onyx key system, taking all practical aspects into consideration. We should decide whether key uniqueness should or shouldn't be a requirement in this system, and then adjust whatever needs to be adjusted.

Copy link
Contributor

@blazejkustra blazejkustra Apr 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you think the first one is possible/reasonable?

It's possible, because we already have some keys that aren't unique. But this comes with a lot of ts-expect-errors in the code. We could overcome this by defining a common type for both personal bank account and personal bank account form, but this would require a big refactor across the codebase due to conflicts in these two types.

It's not reasonable, without unique keys we would compromise on types because a key could be either a PersonalDetailsForm type or PersonalDetails and this would create a big mess inside components (try it for yourself 😅)

I understand Expensify has other priorities at the moment, but the best approach would be to fix this on the backend side and keep keys unique.

@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ function addPersonalBankAccount(account: PlaidBankAccount) {
},
],
failureData: [
// @ts-expect-error: ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT is conflicting with ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT
{
onyxMethod: Onyx.METHOD.MERGE,
key: ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT,
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 also conflicts because of the errors property. It expects to be FormValue | null | undefined, but the error type is OnyxCommon.Errors.

type BaseForm = {
/** Controls the loading state of the form */
isLoading?: boolean;
/** Server side errors keyed by microtime */
errors?: OnyxCommon.Errors | null;
/** Field-specific server side errors keyed by microtime */
errorFields?: OnyxCommon.ErrorFields | null;
};
type FormValues<TInputs extends string> = Record<TInputs, FormValue>;
type Form<TInputs extends string = string, TFormValues extends FormValues<TInputs> = FormValues<TInputs>> = TFormValues & BaseForm;

If we don't pass anything to TInputs, then the value type is expected to be FormValue. If I pass any value to it, then the type error is gone.

type PersonalBankAccountForm = Form;

type PersonalBankAccountForm = Form<"test">

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Additional video showing that it still works in a normal case.

Screen.Recording.2024-04-02.at.19.49.13.mov

@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ function addPersonalBankAccount(account: PlaidBankAccount) {
},
],
failureData: [
// @ts-expect-error: ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT is conflicting with ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand why we need both these keys; could you explain it to me? I thought that keeping both was the original human mistake here and the cause of all the trouble.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's mainly for type and convention. The FormProvider formID expects the value to be one of the keys of OnyxFormValuesMapping type,

[ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT]: FormTypes.PersonalBankAccountForm;

and the type for ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT is FormTypes.PersonalBankAccountForm. I think it would be weird if I change the type to be OnyxTypes.PersonalBankAccount.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And we can't switch to just ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why can't we? By "switch" I mean start using ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT where we now use ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT. Are there also some typing constraints here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, I thought you mean to use ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT with the old value (personalBankAccountForm).

We can but the type error still exists without ignoring it.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Okey, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the error.

ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT is conflicting with ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT

If ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT didn't exist (because we replaced all usages with the new key, ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT and deleted ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT itself ), than how would it conflict?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@bernhardoj bernhardoj Apr 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I explained it briefly in the previous comment here.

Here is the type of the onyx update:
image

The KeyValueMapping type includes this custom type:

interface CustomTypeOptions {
keys: OnyxValueKey | OnyxFormKey | OnyxFormDraftKey;
collectionKeys: OnyxCollectionKey;
values: OnyxValues;
}

The OnyxValues contains the type for both ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT (PersonalBankAccount) and ONYXKEYS.FORMS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT (PersonalBankAccountForm).

type OnyxValues = OnyxValuesMapping & OnyxCollectionValuesMapping & OnyxFormValuesMapping & OnyxFormDraftValuesMapping;

Because the key is the same (personalBankAccount, both types are used)

I have tried doing this:

type PersonalBankAccountForm = Form & PersonalBankAccount;

But still get the error.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've inspected the code; please disregard my previous suggestions. I underestimated how much is going on here type-wise.

@cubuspl42
Copy link
Contributor

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 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(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 form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label 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
Android: mWeb Chrome

image

iOS: Native

image

iOS: mWeb Safari

image

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

image

MacOS: Desktop

@cubuspl42
Copy link
Contributor

@bernhardoj Would you solve the conflicts?

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

It's conflicted with #39038, I'll check it more tomorrow.

@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ function setPersonalBankAccountContinueKYCOnSuccess(onSuccessFallbackRoute: Rout

function clearPersonalBankAccount() {
clearPlaid();
Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT, {});
Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_BANK_ACCOUNT, null);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changed this to null to fix the type. Every usage of personalBankAccount already uses a null safety, so it's safe.

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cubuspl42 I have retested this PR and the test step from #39038 and everything still seems works fine.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from Gonals April 11, 2024 07:54
@cubuspl42
Copy link
Contributor

@Gonals The typing situation is far from perfect here, but it's not trivial to fix it. Please see this comment for context.

@Gonals Gonals merged commit 0f4da45 into Expensify:main Apr 11, 2024
17 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

✋ 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
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Gonals in version: 1.4.63-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.4.63-21 🚀

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