Fix send code validation

[teneeto]

Details

This PR fixes issue with sending email validation link. When a user triggers email validation from profile, the magic sign-in code isn't sent immediately till you have to trigger Didn't receive a magic code?. This PR is raise to fix a reverted code merge https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/46846

Fixed Issues

$: 41330 PROPOSAL: issuecomment

Tests

Verifying newly added account

1. Make sure you are Logged out of both NewDot and OldDot
2. Navigate to OldDot https://staging.expensify.com/
3. In the login screen enter a new gmail account (make sure it's a gmail account as my work email didn't work)
4. Verify you're navigated to staging NewDot
5. Navigate to account Settings > profile > Contact methods
6. Click on the email
7. Verify you're prompted for the magic code to validate the account
8. Verify the account receives a magic code to their email inbox
9. Enter the magic code in the field
10. Click on Verify

Adding a Secondary Contact

1. add a new contact method
2. clicking on "add" button should take you to validate code form
3. Clicking on a contact in the contact methods should trigger a validate code request

Expectation: The validation link is sent first time, and user is not logged out when magic code is entered.

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

Offline tests

Verifying newly added account

1. Make sure you are Logged out of both NewDot and OldDot
2. Navigate to OldDot https://staging.expensify.com/
3. In the login screen enter a new gmail account (make sure it's a gmail account as my work email didn't work)
4. Verify you're navigated to staging NewDot
5. Navigate to account Settings > profile > Contact methods
6. Click on the email
7. Verify you're prompted for the magic code to validate the account
8. Verify the account receives a magic code to their email inbox
9. Enter the magic code in the field
10. Click on Verify

Adding a Secondary Contact

1. add a new contact method
2. clicking on "add" button should take you to validate code form
3. Clicking on a contact in the contact methods should trigger a validate code request

Expectation: The validation link is sent first time, and user is not logged out when magic code is entered.

QA Steps

Verifying newly added account

1. Make sure you are Logged out of both NewDot and OldDot
2. Navigate to OldDot https://staging.expensify.com/
3. In the login screen enter a new gmail account (make sure it's a gmail account as my work email didn't work)
4. Verify you're navigated to staging NewDot
5. Navigate to account Settings > profile > Contact methods
6. Click on the email
7. Verify you're prompted for the magic code to validate the account
8. Verify the account receives a magic code to their email inbox
9. Enter the magic code in the field
10. Click on Verify

Adding a Secondary Contact

1. add a new contact method
2. clicking on "add" button should take you to validate code form
3. Clicking on a contact in the contact methods should trigger a validate code request

Expectation: The validation link is sent first time, and user is not logged out when magic code is entered.

• [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 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)
  • [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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or 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 and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b187becc-5972-4a2c-915d-01811dab0d45

iOS: Native

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@nkuoch 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]

[teneeto]

Hi @c3024, can we check for the update here.

[teneeto]

Hi @c3024, let's check this again.

[c3024]

The first change mentioned here for User.ts is required for sending code correctly for secondary contacts. This is not included in the PR. Otherwise the API request is made for sending code for the primary contact.

Here is the video showing this bug.

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4418c44f-3ae6-486c-afea-47fe9dd044c2

[teneeto]

Hi @c3024, I haven't added that piece yet, seeing that there was a recent code change which removed navigation completely: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/48320/files#r1738644645

I'm still trying to figure out why that was done and what next to do. As it stands, adding that piece gives this flickering navigation behaviour as shown in the screen record

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7b62a2a4-5dfe-4b3b-995f-3a4397f1ddf4

[c3024]

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 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)
  • [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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or 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 and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/45de8c08-18af-4e9c-807e-4025cd6d5a29

Android: mWeb Chrome

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/52f2d8e5-f4d7-45c9-9fad-e034190a9197

iOS: Native

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f81dbb1d-252b-46aa-b71c-38bdd0d5cdbb

iOS: mWeb Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8327f245-62cc-4fee-bdb7-ba6d57c44137

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/654dfdef-1298-44aa-9c0a-530e14bc685e

MacOS: Desktop

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ce166a56-8be7-49e9-b6fb-0cb56f84779b

[melvin-bot[bot]]

🎯 @c3024, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

An E/App issue has been created to issue payment here: https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/49451.

[shawnborton]

Why does the UI look differently between these two screens?

[dannymcclain]

Also this is feeling verrrrrry tight to me:

Can we try 20px between the number inputs and the Didn't receive a magic code? message? And then, is there a reason the Verify button isn't at the bottom like our standard "footer buttons"?

[teneeto]

Why does the UI look different between these two screens?

Hi @shawnborton, Although I didn't make any UI changes here. I can make changes if you could propose what the UI should look like.

[teneeto]

Hi @c3024, what's the plan with this PR, anything more to push for?

[nkuoch]

Let me know when it's ready for final review

[teneeto]

@nkuoch yes this is ready for review.

[nkuoch]

cc @shawnborton for https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/47772#issuecomment-2376063088

[shawnborton]

Sorry - I've been OOO for the past 3 weeks so just catching up now. Is the original comment updated with the latest screenshots of this PR?

[teneeto]

Sorry - I've been OOO for the past 3 weeks so just catching up now. Is the original comment updated with the latest screenshots of this PR?

Hi @shawnborton, welcome back from ooo. I had worked on this issue for code validation and secondary email validation flow; I would need more direction on what should be done on that UI and clarification on what to do according to the original comment.

[teneeto]

Why does the UI look differently between these two screens?

1. You mentioned that, and I'm wondering what the actual UI between those screens should be (I couldn't get the difference you mentioned)
2. @dannymcclain mentioned why the verify button isn't at the bottom like other standard footer buttons - should I make it that way?

I will pick this up once I have clarification and green light on those.

[shawnborton]

mentioned why the verify button isn't at the bottom like other standard footer buttons - should I make it that way?

Yes!

In this screen, the message above the form has a green dot pattern:

I kind of think we can just kill that and use a standard message like we have here:

But one way to think about this - if you basically go to create a new account and don't validate it, then go to add a bank account, let's just reuse the same kind of screen/form that you see here:

[teneeto]

Lovely, Already started fixes @shawnborton

One question and clarification: The screen with the remove button should be left that way, right? We don't have to push the verify button to the footer since the remove button is below it, right?

[dannymcclain]

For that case I think we'd do it like this:

But happy for Shawn to weigh in too!

[shawnborton]

Yup, I dig it!

[teneeto]

@shawnborton @dannymcclain, this should be a new look for the validation flow.

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3bb73362-f396-4252-8d17-787e65b982ad

---

One question is, since we removed the dot indicator (green) for contacts that require verification, should we also remove the dot indicator (red) for failed contacts (contacts that cannot be added because they already exist, etc.)? Please take a look at the video record below.

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/82e8a158-c0ba-48a0-a48d-6d2b4084c2ea

[shawnborton]

Oh sorry, I don't think we should remove the green dot from this screen here:

I just think we should remove it from the message on the subsequent screen.

So that being said, I think we should keep the green and red dot indicators on the Contact methods page.

[teneeto]

Hey @shawnborton, that's precisely my question 😄. The red and green dot indicators haven't been removed from the contact methods; I am confirming if they should be removed from the details page, which is the next screen. Precisely the screen shown in the screenshot below.

[shawnborton]

Ah sorry, I would say no, do not remove it from the subsequent page. We need to show an error message there.

[teneeto]

Ah sorry, I would say no, do not remove it from the subsequent page. We need to show an error message there.

For clarity and confirmation,

1. I should remove the green dot on the subsequent page.
2. I should not remove the red dot on the subsequent page

Are those scenarios correct? @shawnborton

[shawnborton]

Correct!

[teneeto]

@nkuoch @c3024 This is ready for another review. Let's check.

[c3024]

"Remove" button is missing in the secondary contact details page.

Alignment of "Set as default" button is too close to the left edge.

Dev and Prod:

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c90a778c-635e-41ad-8831-429631437f47

Staging:

[teneeto]

@c3024, thanks for catching that. I will fix it and push back.