@suneox 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]

@Expensify/design can I get a gut check here? I think the icons in the placeholder should be borders and the icon in the modal should be icons. Seems like they're backwards right now?

Placeholder:

Modal:

@dannymcclain , @Expensify/design, Could you please provide me with the correct icon color and background color for the placeholder and modal? Alternatively, could you share the design for that case so I can update it accordingly? Thank you!

I think I agree with that. I definitely think the modal should use icons at least. For the placeholder... I checked Figma and looks like it does indeed use borders, so you are right:

Ok hopefully this will be helpful:

I think the placeholder background needs to be highlight-background to match our expense/report previews. That way even when the message is hovered, the colors don't cause any collisions. Right now it looks like it's set to borders and I don't think it needs to be so impactful.

@dannymcclain , @Expensify/design, I have finished updating the icon and background colors for online and offline modes, following this comment. Could you please review it and let me know if you have any questions?

@huult looks good from what I'm seeing in the updated screenshots in the original comment 👍

Looking good! Do we need the border around the placeholder box? Have we always had that or was that recently introduced?

Also, ideally the text underneath You appear to be offline should be using our text-supporting color (in every version of this offline message) like below:

But that might need to be changed elsewhere/globally so if that's the case we don't need to worry about it here.

I'm guessing the border around the placeholder is just the same standard border we use for all image attachments? I could be wrong though. And we might not even need it as you are suggesting, maybe we kill it. No strong feelings from me really.

@dannymcclain as @shawnborton answered, do we need to make any more changes?

Ah if it's standard for all images then no I think we can keep it. I don't feel too strongly about it so I think it's fine if it's already part of the "normal" image styles.

Thanks, @dannymcclain . I will not make any more changes to my pull request, so @suneox , could you please review it? If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks!

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

Warning: Function components cannot be given refs was raised on slack

Warning: TRenderEngineProvider: Support for defaultProps was raised on slack

Warning: findDOMNode is deprecated in StrictMode was raised on slack

Ok hopefully this will be helpful:

@huult Could you please also handle the case when opening from the attachment list? It still shows infinite loading instead of displaying a broken image.

@huult Could you please also handle the case when opening from the attachment list? It still shows infinite loading instead of displaying a broken image.

@suneox The issue you mentioned has been addressed in another ticket. Here is the pull request that resolves it. Therefore, I believe we don't need to address this issue here

Excellent!

@MarioExpensify 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.

Reviewer checklist WAS filled in, not sure what happened here @suneox. Dismissing Emergency label.

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

Reviewer checklist WAS filled in, not sure what happened here @suneox. Dismissing Emergency label.

I think it’s related to the pipeline rule not being triggered after approve the PR.

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/MarioExpensify in version: 9.0.52-0 🚀

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.0.52-5 🚀