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/30190: Duplicate phone number can be invited to room #31010

Conversation

DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor

@DylanDylann DylanDylann commented Nov 7, 2023

Details

  • Room - Can invite valid phone account multiple times into the room

Fixed Issues

$ #30190
PROPOSAL: #30190 (comment)

Tests

  1. Create a WS
  2. Create a room with workspace
  3. Click room header => Members => Invite
  4. Input an phone (eg: +3233232432) then select and click invite
  5. Input the phone number in step 4 in search box again
  6. Observe that there is no option to select and the message ${login} is already a member of ${name} is displayed
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

  1. Create a WS
  2. Create a room with workspace
  3. Click room header => Members => Invite
  4. Input an phone (eg: +3233232432) then select and click invite
  5. Input the phone number in step 4 in search box again
  6. Observe that there is no option to select and the message ${login} is already a member of ${name} is displayed
  • 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 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
    • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
      • 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(themeColors.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 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Screencast.from.08-11-2023.11.38.17.webm
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screencast.from.08-11-2023.10.35.17.webm
iOS: Native
Screencast.from.08-11-2023.09.38.35.webm
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screencast.from.08-11-2023.10.15.46.webm
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screencast.from.07-11-2023.23.56.47.webm
MacOS: Desktop
Screencast.from.08-11-2023.09.12.48.webm

Comment on lines 72 to 75
const excludedUsers = useMemo(
() => _.map([...lodashGet(props.report, 'participants', []), ...CONST.EXPENSIFY_EMAILS], (participant) => OptionsListUtils.addSMSDomainIfPhoneNumber(participant)),
[props.report],
);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is a minor change in my original proposal

  • In the original, I will "add the @expensify.sms with the phone number when calling API "InviteToRoom".
  • But when implementing the PR, I found that if we do like above, the unexpected personalProfile account will be returned by BE. So I will keep the current logic when calling API "InviteToRoom", and just add the "@expensify.sms" to the excludeUser

@DylanDylann DylanDylann marked this pull request as ready for review November 8, 2023 03:39
@DylanDylann DylanDylann requested a review from a team as a code owner November 8, 2023 03:39
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team November 8, 2023 03:39
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 8, 2023

@rushatgabhane 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]

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rushatgabhane Please help review this PR

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rushatgabhane Please help review this PR again in case you miss it

Copy link
Member

@rushatgabhane rushatgabhane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@DylanDylann
The bug is still reproducible.

  1. Invite a number from same country
  2. Invite them again
Screen.Recording.2023-11-17.at.12.29.23.mov

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

DylanDylann commented Nov 17, 2023

@rushatgabhane This issue appears when we invite user to room (Based on issue `s title and reproduce steps), not a workspace. So I think we need to confirm that, in this PR, whether we should fix case invite user to workspace or not

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member

yea I think we should fix it everywhere

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

yea I think we should fix it everywhere

@rushatgabhane Updated. Please help check

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rushatgabhane Please help review this once you have a chance

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rushatgabhane In case you miss it

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rushatgabhane Please help review this PR again

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rushatgabhane In case you miss it

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member

sorry this one slipped

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member

rushatgabhane commented Dec 15, 2023

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 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 image
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native image
iOS: mWeb Safari image
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2023-12-15.at.18.28.43.mov
MacOS: Desktop image

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from Beamanator December 15, 2023 13:32
@Beamanator
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry but seems the last commit here was about a month ago, right? IF so, @DylanDylann can you please merge main & retest?

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member

@Beamanator im testing by merging with latest main
do we still need to @DylanDylann to retest?

@Beamanator
Copy link
Contributor

@rushatgabhane aah you're testing locally with latest main? That shoulddddd be fine

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member

yepp we can merge if this looks good to you

Copy link
Contributor

@Beamanator Beamanator left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@Beamanator Beamanator merged commit f5696ff into Expensify:main Dec 15, 2023
16 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/Beamanator in version: 1.4.14-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.4.14-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 1.4.14-6 🚀

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

mountiny added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 22, 2023
…-invite-valid-phone-account-multiple-times"

This reverts commit f5696ff, reversing
changes made to e23eebe.
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.4.17-0 🚀

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

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

@DylanDylann @Beamanator This was reverted as the additional phone check on the Search page has been causing the app to hang/ crash for Account Manager users who have thousands of people with sms number in their contacts

With the next attempt, lets make an Adhoc build and ask internal users like @conorpendergrast or @muttmuure to test the build search page performance

@rushatgabhane
Copy link
Member

rushatgabhane commented Dec 26, 2023

ooo i wonder if we should add performance test for Search page.
In the next attempt, we could also benchmark before and after to prove that there is no performance impact

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

We are working on that with Callstack and reassure tool in performance room

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 1.4.17-8 🚀

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

@DylanDylann
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rushatgabhane @mountiny I just created the new PR here

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