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

[Simplified Collect][Workflows] Select workspace approver #37391

Merged
merged 108 commits into from
Mar 1, 2024

Conversation

rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member

@rushatgabhane rushatgabhane commented Feb 28, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #37195
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Verify that you can set approver

  1. Go to workspace settings
  2. Select a control policy workspace that you're an admin of
  3. Enable add approvals
  4. Click approver
  5. Select a user
  6. Verify that the approver is changed and persisted.
  7. Open the approver screen again, verify that the approver selected in step 5 has a green check next to it.

Verify that filtering (searching) works

  1. Go to approver page
  2. Search for a member, verify that the members are filtered.
  3. Verify that you can select a searched member and it's set as an approver
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • 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 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native image
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari image
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-02-28.at.12.55.59.mov
image
MacOS: Desktop

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

Have you tried cleaning everything and installing again?

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member Author

rushatgabhane commented Mar 1, 2024

hahaha

image

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member Author

rushatgabhane commented Mar 1, 2024

@allroundexperts all typechecks and lint errors fixed. I didn't fix errors that are also present on main branch.
Requesting your review again 🙇

image

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

@rushatgabhane All checks are passing on main.

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member Author

rushatgabhane commented Mar 1, 2024

@allroundexperts we didn't make any changes in withPolicy. But there's still an error

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

@allroundexperts we didn't make any changes in withPolicy. But there's still an error

Hm... Something must have changed. Because this is passing on main.

@allroundexperts
Copy link
Contributor

TS passed 🎉

Copy link
Contributor

@allroundexperts allroundexperts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good. Great work @rushatgabhane!

Copy link
Contributor

@luacmartins luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@luacmartins luacmartins merged commit 902f2b8 into Expensify:main Mar 1, 2024
15 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Mar 1, 2024

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

@luacmartins
Copy link
Contributor

Created internal issue to send approverAccountID so we can get rid of getPersonalDetailByEmail - https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/374749

Comment on lines +66 to +68
[SCREENS.WORKSPACE.WORKFLOWS_APPROVER]: {
policyID: string;
};

This comment was marked as duplicate.

Copy link
Member Author

@rushatgabhane rushatgabhane Mar 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

could you please link the TS check. i can't find failing check

Copy link
Contributor

@ishpaul777 ishpaul777 Mar 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sorry that was mistake 🙇‍♂️

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Mar 4, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.4.47-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Mar 6, 2024

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.4.47-10 🚀

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

if (searchTerm !== '') {
const filteredOptions = [...formattedApprover, ...formattedPolicyMembers].filter((option) => {
const searchValue = OptionsListUtils.getSearchValueForPhoneOrEmail(searchTerm);
return !!option.text?.toLowerCase().includes(searchValue) || !!option.login?.toLowerCase().includes(searchValue);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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