Skip to content

[Test Drive][Phase 1][FE] Show the Test Drive modal during onboarding and via task #60085

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

Conversation

pac-guerreiro
Copy link
Contributor

@pac-guerreiro pac-guerreiro commented Apr 11, 2025

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$#60041
#60042
PROPOSAL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PryaYgnK8MeV2Zb_1Arp0HxSvRa7TJCjxGhTWGOVQ8s/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ntotu1k8frrn

Tests

  1. Create a new account
  2. Choose Manage my team's expenses
  3. Choose 1-10 employees
  4. Choose None of the above
  5. Verify that the test drive modal is shown properly, then try both scenarios below:

Scenario A

  1. Click on Start test drive
  2. Do the test drive and confirm that everything is working as it should
  3. Confirm that by clicking Get started on the top bar finishes the test drive

Scenario B

  1. Click on 'Skip'
  2. Go to Concierge chat and click on the link on Take a test drive task
  3. Do the test drive and confirm that everything is working as it should
  4. Confirm that by clicking Get started on the top bar finishes the test drive

Offline tests

Same as tests.

QA Steps

Same as tests

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

Android: Native
Android.-.Native.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
Android.-.Chrome.mp4
iOS: Native
iOS.-.Native.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
iOS.-.Safari.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS.-.Chrome.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
MacOS.-.Desktop.mp4

Copy link
Contributor

@fabioh8010 fabioh8010 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@pac-guerreiro Let's prepare the test steps and screenshots/videos in advance while the first PR is in review

…guerreiro/feature/show-test-drive-modal-during-onboarding
…arding' into pac-guerreiro/feature/implement-test-drive-embedded-ui

# Conflicts:
#	src/libs/Navigation/types.ts
…guerreiro/feature/show-test-drive-modal-during-onboarding
…arding' into pac-guerreiro/feature/implement-test-drive-embedded-ui
@pac-guerreiro
Copy link
Contributor Author

Today I added testing steps, screen recordings and filled checklist.

…arding' into pac-guerreiro/feature/implement-test-drive-embedded-ui

# Conflicts:
#	src/components/TestDriveModal.tsx
@pac-guerreiro pac-guerreiro marked this pull request as ready for review April 16, 2025 23:50
@pac-guerreiro pac-guerreiro requested a review from a team as a code owner April 16, 2025 23:50
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from rojiphil and removed request for a team April 16, 2025 23:50
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 16, 2025

@rojiphil 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]

@pac-guerreiro
Copy link
Contributor Author

@danieldoglas @rojiphil The PR is ready for review! 😄

@fabioh8010
Copy link
Contributor

@pac-guerreiro @danieldoglas @rojiphil I think it will be better to also put the changes of the Embedded UI PR into this one, because this feature is not behind any betas and users would see a modal that doesn't do anything unless the Embedded UI PR is merged.

@pac-guerreiro This should be fairly easy to do, and you can also just pull the test steps/screenthots from there and use it here.

What do you all think?

Copy link
Contributor

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah. I also think merging the embedded UI PR with this one may be better.

@pac-guerreiro I have just left a query. Please have a look. Thanks.

@@ -13,6 +16,13 @@ const navigateAfterOnboarding = (
) => {
Navigation.dismissModal();

if (onboardingPurposeSelected === CONST.ONBOARDING_CHOICES.MANAGE_TEAM) {
setTimeout(() => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is there a need to use setTimeout here?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need a delay otherwise the navigation actions (dismissModal and this navigation) will conflict and cause bugs, but @pac-guerreiro we can use InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions() here instead, it's a better choice

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah! I get it now. Thanks.
Would this utility setNavigationActionToMicrotaskQueue help here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@fabioh8010 @rojiphil InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions() was not working on native Android and iOS, so I used this logic

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@pac-guerreiro Did you check if this works?

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 missed addressing this comment. What do you think of this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@rojiphil I applied your suggestions but still need to test it

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@rojiphil I confirm your suggestion works! But I tried using InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions() again and it also works... I guess I might've stumbled into a cache issue of my emulators 😅 I'll go with @fabioh8010 solution 😄

@@ -13,6 +16,13 @@ const navigateAfterOnboarding = (
) => {
Navigation.dismissModal();

if (onboardingPurposeSelected === CONST.ONBOARDING_CHOICES.MANAGE_TEAM) {
setTimeout(() => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need a delay otherwise the navigation actions (dismissModal and this navigation) will conflict and cause bugs, but @pac-guerreiro we can use InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions() here instead, it's a better choice

@danieldoglas
Copy link
Contributor

I think it will be better to also put the changes of the #60089 into this one, because this feature is not behind any betas and users would see a modal that doesn't do anything unless the Embedded UI PR is merged.

I'm discussing internally if we should have a beta for this. But I agree that if we don't, then we should merge them together (or merge the embedded PR first)

@pac-guerreiro
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll wait for your decision @danieldoglas 😉

… into pac-guerreiro/feature/show-test-drive-modal-during-onboarding
@pac-guerreiro pac-guerreiro requested a review from a team as a code owner April 17, 2025 16:44
@pac-guerreiro
Copy link
Contributor Author

@danieldoglas As decided here, I proceeded with merging the third PR with this one.

@pac-guerreiro
Copy link
Contributor Author

@fabioh8010 @rojiphil I think I addressed all your feedback! Anything else you find, let me know! 😄

Copy link
Contributor

@fabioh8010 fabioh8010 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Minor comment

Copy link
Contributor

@fabioh8010 fabioh8010 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! @danieldoglas @rojiphil over to you

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

rojiphil commented Apr 24, 2025

@pac-guerreiro Looks like we are marking the task as completed earlier than required. ~

@danieldoglas My thoughts were that we have to mark it as completed only when the user clicks on Get started
I have just updated the test cases to capture this.
Is this expected?

Edit:

It doesn’t matter how much they complete in the test drive, opening it checks off the task.

Sorry.. Just found this in the design doc. So, it is intended to complete the task once opened. Please ignore the above comment.

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

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 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari
60085-web-chrome-001.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
60085-desktop-001.mp4
Android: Native
60085-android-hybrid-001.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
60085-mweb-chrome-001.mp4
iOS: Native

Not tested as I have build issues. I think this is fine as the focus is not on mobile versions for this phase.

iOS: mWeb Safari
60085-mweb-safari-001.mp4

@rojiphil
Copy link
Contributor

@pac-guerreiro There are conflicts here. Can you please resolve them?

Copy link
Contributor

@rojiphil rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@danieldoglas The only issues I notice are with the story lane test drive.

  1. There are issues with the mobile versions as mentioned here.

Curious to know if there is a plan to use swipe through carousel for mobile versions? I get this thought from the following statement in design document:

A limitation of this is that the mobile solution is not ideal as it’s not really a test drive, it’s just a swipe through carousel.

  1. Additionally, I have also left a comment here to improve the user experience.

Outside of the story lane though, the changes in this PR LGTM.
Approving for your review. Thanks.

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from danieldoglas April 24, 2025 10:12
@pac-guerreiro
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rojiphil @fabioh8010 conflicts resolved! Thanks 😄

@danieldoglas danieldoglas merged commit d04ecfc into Expensify:main Apr 24, 2025
19 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.

@dubielzyk-expensify
Copy link
Contributor

This is looking pretty great to me. cc @Expensify/design

(Would be good to get the design check before merging next time 😄 My bad for not being quick enough though)

@shawnborton
Copy link
Contributor

Same, looking good from what I can tell too 👍

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/danieldoglas in version: 9.1.33-0 🚀

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/danieldoglas in version: 9.1.35-1 🚀

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/danieldoglas in version: 9.1.36-3 🚀

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/danieldoglas in version: 9.1.37-1 🚀

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

Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.1.37-3 🚀

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

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.

9 participants