[No QA] [TS Migration] Standardize approach to Onyx pendingFields

[VickyStash]

trafficstars

Details

[TS Migration] Standardize approach to Onyx pendingFields

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/34662 PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

• [x] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

• [x] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• [x] I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• [x] I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • [x] I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • [x] I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • [x] I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • [x] I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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).
• [x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• [x] I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • [x] Android: Native
  • [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
  • [x] iOS: Native
  • [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Desktop
• [x] 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)
• [x] I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • [x] 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:
  • [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• [x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• [x] I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• [x] 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)
• [x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• [x] 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
• [x] I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• [x] If any new file was added I verified that:
  • [x] 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
• [x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
  • [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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)
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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.
• [x] If the PR modifies the form input styles:
  • [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • [x] I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[VickyStash]

@roryabraham Could you please clarify what fields can be in the pendingFields? Based on the code it looks like it can be some specific fields of the entity we do the action on or just some values like addWorkspaceRoom. Is there any limitation on what fields of the entity can be in the pendingFields? cc @fabioh8010

[roryabraham]

Could you please clarify what fields can be in the pendingFields?

I think prettymuch any key on the onyx entity can be pending. No limitations as far as I know

[VickyStash]

@roryabraham How do you think, should we apply offline feedback props (pendingAction, pendingFields) to all of the Onyx types we have or just to types that already have these fields as for now?

[VickyStash]

@roryabraham kind bump on the question above 🙂

[VickyStash]

@roryabraham Could you please take a look at the question above?

[roryabraham]

How do you think, should we apply offline feedback props (pendingAction, pendingFields) to all of the Onyx types we have or just to types that already have these fields as for now?

Maybe it makes sense to use generics to specify which fields can be pending? So more the latter option.

[VickyStash]

@roryabraham Just to be true I didn't get your answer, so I'll provide more detailed information to be sure we are on the same page.

1st variant of implementation (implemented in this PR right now):

We have OnyxCommon.OnyxValueWithOfflineFeedback generic type which accept two variables: the onyx type (required), additional keys we want to pass to pendingFields (optional).

This type returns provided onyx type with additional pendingAction and pendingFields fields, where pendingFields key can be any onyx type key (besides errorFields) + additional keys if where provided as a second param. Let's take a look at the example to make it more clear:

type Login = OnyxCommon.OnyxValueWithOfflineFeedback<
    {
        partnerUserID?: string;
        partnerName?: string;
        validatedDate?: string;
        errorFields?: OnyxCommon.ErrorFields;
    },
    'defaultLogin' | 'validateLogin' | 'addedLogin' | 'deletedLogin'  <- these keys are optional generic variable, you don't have to pass them if it's not necessary
>;

This in fact the same as

type Login = {
        partnerUserID?: string;
        partnerName?: string;
        validatedDate?: string;
        validateCodeSent?: boolean;
        errorFields?: OnyxCommon.ErrorFields;
        pendingAction?: OnyxCommon.PendingAction;

        /* So we have Login type keys + additional keys we provided as keys for pendingFields */
        pendingFields?: OnyxCommon.PendingFields<"partnerUserID" | "partnerName" | "validatedDate" | "validateCodeSent" | "defaultLogin" | "validateLogin" | "addedLogin" | "deletedLogin">; 
};

---

2nd variant of implementation (to consider): We can have a generic type, OnyxCommon.OfflineFeedback for example, which will accept all possible pending fields keys and use them only. See the example:

/* In this case we mention specific keys we need and only them will be used in pending fields */
type Login = OnyxCommon.OfflineFeedback<'validateCodeSent' | defaultLogin' | 'validateLogin' | 'addedLogin' | 'deletedLogin'> & {
        partnerUserID?: string;
        partnerName?: string;
        validatedDate?: string;
        validateCodeSent?: boolean;
        errorFields?: OnyxCommon.ErrorFields;
}

This will be the same as

type Login = {
        partnerUserID?: string;
        partnerName?: string;
        validatedDate?: string;
        validateCodeSent?: boolean;
        errorFields?: OnyxCommon.ErrorFields;
        pendingAction?: OnyxCommon.PendingAction;

        /* So in this case we have only keys we provided to a generic type */
        pendingFields?: OnyxCommon.PendingFields<'validateCodeSent' | defaultLogin' | 'validateLogin' | 'addedLogin' | 'deletedLogin'>; 
};

---

Questions:

1. Let me know which way it makes more sense to you?
2. Should we apply these generics to all Onyx types we have right now in the app (ex: PlaidData, WalletTerms, User) or just to one which already have pendingAction/pendingFields in their typing (ex: Report, Policy)?

CC @blazejkustra @fabioh8010

[VickyStash]

@roryabraham bump on this one :)

[roryabraham]

Let me know which way it makes more sense to you?

The first approach makes sense to me 👍🏼

Should we apply these generics to all Onyx types we have right now in the app (ex: PlaidData, WalletTerms, User) or just to one which already have pendingAction/pendingFields in their typing (ex: Report, Policy)?

Just the ones that have pendingAction/pendingFields

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@DylanDylann 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]

[VickyStash]

Note: I'll be OOO Feb 10 - Feb 18 🌴

[DylanDylann]

Reviewer Checklist

• [x] I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• [x] I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• [x] I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • [x] I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • [x] I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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)
• [x] I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• [x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• [x] I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • [x] Android: Native
  • [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
  • [x] iOS: Native
  • [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Desktop
• [x] 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
• [x] I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • [x] 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).
  • [x] I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• [x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• [x] I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• [x] 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)
• [x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• [x] 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
• [x] If a new component is created I verified that:
  • [x] A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • [x] All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • [x] The file is named correctly
  • [x] The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • [x] The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • [x] 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
• [x] If any new file was added I verified that:
  • [x] 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
• [x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
  • [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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)
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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.
• [x] If the PR modifies the form input styles:
  • [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • [x] I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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.
• [x] I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

There are no test steps for this PR

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[DylanDylann]

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/f438cb7901c4405e7ec2bbb22aaa904bb5b8fb66/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts#L127

Should we update this case?

[DylanDylann]

Also resolve conflict

[DylanDylann]

@VickyStash Bump on this one

[VickyStash]

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/f438cb7901c4405e7ec2bbb22aaa904bb5b8fb66/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts#L127

Should we update this case?

I think it's okay to leave it as is since it's not an Onyx type cc @fabioh8010

[roryabraham]

looks like there are conflicts to resolve here, but I look forward to reviewing this again

[VickyStash]

@roryabraham Conflicts are resolved, please take a look when you can

[roryabraham]

Sorry, conflicts again

[VickyStash]

@roryabraham Conflicts are resolved again 😅

[OSBotify]

:hand: 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/roryabraham in version: 1.4.44-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.44-13 🚀

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