Skip to content

fix: remove shouldAdminsRoomBeVisible #59293

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

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Apr 8, 2025

Conversation

hannojg
Copy link
Contributor

@hannojg hannojg commented Mar 28, 2025

Explanation of Change

This removes the option to filter out admin rooms, as discussed here:

See discussion: https://margelo.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1743159521199569?thread_ts=1743103075.594299&cid=C05LX9D6E07

This will make admin rooms show up in search + LHN (if no other rule filters it out).

Fixed Issues

$ #59314
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  1. Go to Settings > Workspaces and create a new workspace
  2. Go back to the LHN
  3. The #admins room of your new workspace should not be appear, since it's an empty chat
  4. Go to the search and search for the #admins room
  5. It should appear correctly, and you should be able to access it
  6. Drafting a message or pinning the chat should keep it on LHN, even when it's empty

Offline tests

Same as testing

QA Steps

Same as testing

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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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 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 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.ts 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 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.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • 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

Sorry, I only had time to test on web. This change shouldn't cause any differences on the other platforms. To my C+ reviewer, could you help me please with creating the remaining test screenshots? Thank you so much in advance! 🫶

Android: Native
android.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
android.chrome.mov
iOS: Native
ios.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios.safari.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

CleanShot 2025-03-28 at 12 56 36

MacOS: Desktop

@hannojg hannojg requested a review from a team as a code owner March 28, 2025 11:52
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from mjasikowski and removed request for a team March 28, 2025 11:53
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 28, 2025

@mjasikowski 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]

@hannojg
Copy link
Contributor Author

hannojg commented Mar 28, 2025

cc @mountiny @trjExpensify

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

trjExpensify commented Mar 28, 2025

Going to run a build (only for Web). I want to test the empty chat case on sign-up with someone who doesn't get a guide.

Copy link
Contributor

🚧 @trjExpensify has triggered a test app build. You can view the workflow run here.

Copy link
Contributor

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖 iOS 🍎
Android 🤖🔄 iOS 🍎🔄
Android iOS
Desktop 💻 Web 🕸️
❌ FAILED ❌ https://59293.pr-testing.expensify.com
The QR code can't be generated, because the Desktop build failed Web

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

@trjExpensify
Copy link
Contributor

trjExpensify commented Mar 28, 2025

Yeah, okay. So now we've got an empty #admins rooms in the LHN for that case. So some other condition is not making it adhere to this.

2025-03-28_12-07-47.mp4

Edit: I think it's probably here as a isChatRoom.

@hannojg hannojg marked this pull request as draft March 28, 2025 13:46
@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

yoo, went through the slack convo, would be happy to review this one if it requires a C+ review

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

@allgandalf thanks! Autoassigner on the issue selected @s77rt though so they will have preference

@s77rt
Copy link
Contributor

s77rt commented Mar 30, 2025

@allgandalf Feel free to review this. Thanks!

@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

thanks @hannojg when can you make this one ready for review?

@wgsquayson
Copy link
Contributor

Hey guys, I'm William from Margelo and i'll be taking over this task

@@ -7471,7 +7451,7 @@ function reasonForReportToBeInOptionList({
}

// Hide chats between two users that haven't been commented on from the LNH
if (excludeEmptyChats && isEmptyChat && isChatReport(report) && !isChatRoom(report) && !isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && !isSystemChat(report) && !isGroupChat(report) && canHideReport) {
if (excludeEmptyChats && isEmptyChat && isChatReport(report) && !isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && !isSystemChat(report) && !isGroupChat(report) && canHideReport) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we would also remove the check for the group chat so its all same behaviour for those types of chats

Suggested change
if (excludeEmptyChats && isEmptyChat && isChatReport(report) && !isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && !isSystemChat(report) && !isGroupChat(report) && canHideReport) {
if (excludeEmptyChats && isEmptyChat && isChatReport(report) && !isPolicyExpenseChat(report) && !isSystemChat(report) && canHideReport) {

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done!

@wgsquayson wgsquayson force-pushed the fix/admin-report-not-showing branch from b981d45 to 0bfb85b Compare April 4, 2025 15:44
@wgsquayson
Copy link
Contributor

Since i'm not being able to edit the PR, here goes some more test videos

Android
android.mov
Android Chrome
android.chrome.mov
iOS
ios.mov
iOS Safari
ios.safari.mov

and some numbered tests:

  1. Go to Settings > Workspaces and create a new workspace
  2. Go back to the LHN
  3. The #admins room of your new workspace should not be appear, since it's an empty chat
  4. Go to the search and search for the #admins room
  5. It should appear correctly, and you should be able to access it
  6. Drafting a message or pinning the chat should keep it on LHN, even when it's empty

@wgsquayson
Copy link
Contributor

wgsquayson commented Apr 4, 2025

@hannojg @mountiny @allgandalf im also not able to put it as ready for review, please do so if you can :)

@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

allgandalf commented Apr 4, 2025

@mountiny can you update the PR testing steps with deeds from this comment

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ import {
orderOptions,
orderWorkspaceOptions,
} from '@src/libs/OptionsListUtils';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

great job with the tests!

@mjasikowski
Copy link
Contributor

@hannojg @wgsquayson is this ready for review or is it still a draft PR? Getting mixed messages here.

@wgsquayson
Copy link
Contributor

wgsquayson commented Apr 7, 2025

@mjasikowski it is ready for review, but I'm not being able to edit the PR as stated previously

@hannojg hannojg marked this pull request as ready for review April 7, 2025 10:38
@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

mountiny commented Apr 7, 2025

@allgandalf are you able to complete the checklist please?

@allgandalf
Copy link
Contributor

allgandalf commented Apr 8, 2025

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
  • 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 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.ts 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.
  • For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
  • 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
Screen.Recording.2025-04-08.at.10.02.39.AM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2025-04-08.at.10.04.06.AM.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2025-04-08.at.10.05.37.AM.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2025-04-08.at.10.05.05.AM.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2025-04-08.at.10.00.44.AM.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2025-04-08.at.10.07.00.AM.mov

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from mjasikowski April 8, 2025 04:37
@mjasikowski
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM! @mountiny over to you for one final looksie and let's merge

Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lets try this out, changes look good to me, there might be some blockers raised though due to change in the behaviour

@mountiny mountiny merged commit 7f80b75 into Expensify:main Apr 8, 2025
20 of 23 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Apr 8, 2025

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

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 9, 2025

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.1.25-0 🚀

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.1.25-4 🚀

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

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.

8 participants