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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

More minor fixes for the Onyx bump in E/App #561

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jun 11, 2024
Merged

More minor fixes for the Onyx bump in E/App #561

merged 12 commits into from
Jun 11, 2024

Conversation

chrispader
Copy link
Contributor

@chrispader chrispader commented Jun 10, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@mountiny @s77rt @ikevin127

Details

This PR is adding more fixes to Onyx which are needed to resolve issues in the Onyx bump PR in E/App.

Fixes:

  • useOnyx will never resolve loading state if the value from cache is undefined (because of deepEqual in getSnapshot)
  • Update tests to reflect the new behavior of Onyx setting the cache. When we call Onyx (setter) methods this will set the value in cache synchronously (before storage promises are resolved). Therefore, we must first check for initialValue being set, before we can call these methods.

Related Issues

Expensify/App#42772

Automated Tests

Manual Tests

Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Related 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 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 / Chrome
    • iOS / native
    • iOS / 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 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
    • 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 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 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
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

@chrispader chrispader requested a review from a team as a code owner June 10, 2024 16:14
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from cristipaval and removed request for a team June 10, 2024 16:15
@chrispader chrispader mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2024
Merged
50 tasks
@mountiny mountiny self-requested a review June 11, 2024 14:18
@chrispader chrispader changed the title [WIP] More minor fixes for the Onyx bump in E/App More minor fixes for the Onyx bump in E/App Jun 11, 2024
fabioh8010
fabioh8010 reviewed Jun 11, 2024
View reviewed changes
lib/useOnyx.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lib/useOnyx.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lib/useOnyx.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/unit/useOnyxTest.ts
@@ -257,6 +255,8 @@ describe('useOnyx', () => {
expect(result.current[0]).toEqual('initial value');
expect(result.current[1].status).toEqual('loaded');

Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.TEST_KEY, 'test_id_1');
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just curious: Why did you move the operation to here? Shouldn't we have tests for both cases?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@chrispader chrispader Jun 11, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The moment we use Onyx.set or Onyx.merge (or any setter function) it will store the value in cache synchronously and update the storageKeys Set in OnyxCache. The storage will be updates asynchronously,

If we set the key before asserting for the initialValue, we will always get undefined, because there IS a value in cache already, even though the storage promise hasn't resolved yet.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the explanation!

tests/unit/useOnyxTest.ts
@@ -335,6 +329,12 @@ describe('useOnyx', () => {
expect(result.current[0]).toEqual('initial value');
expect(result.current[1].status).toEqual('loaded');

Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.TEST_KEY, 'test1');
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same: Why did you move the operation to here? Shouldn't we have tests for both cases?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as above

mountiny
mountiny reviewed Jun 11, 2024
View reviewed changes
lib/useOnyx.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
mountiny
mountiny previously approved these changes Jun 11, 2024
View reviewed changes
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.

Just a NAB though seems like we are good to go

mountiny
mountiny approved these changes Jun 11, 2024
View reviewed changes
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.

Merging this to get it incorporated to the onyx bump PR per discussion here https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05R2V5GM1S/p1718119019498549?thread_ts=1717193187.147939&cid=C05R2V5GM1S

@mountiny mountiny merged commit 6762004 into Expensify:main Jun 11, 2024
5 checks passed
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

🚀Published to npm in v2.0.48

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mountiny mountiny mountiny approved these changes

@fabioh8010 fabioh8010 fabioh8010 approved these changes

@cristipaval cristipaval Awaiting requested review from cristipaval

Assignees

@chrispader chrispader

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@chrispader @fabioh8010 @mountiny