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

Poc/split navs #101

Draft
wants to merge 331 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Poc/split navs #101

wants to merge 331 commits into from

Conversation

adamgrzybowski
Copy link

Details

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • 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 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.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 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.
  • 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: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

WojtekBoman and others added 28 commits October 8, 2024 13:39
Migrate FloatingActionButton to useOnyx and add small cleanups
…eze-sidebar

Poc/split navs freeze sidebar
Copy link

@WoLewicki WoLewicki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I left some comments! Monumental work here!

@@ -208,3 +208,274 @@ The action for the first step created with `getMinimalAction` looks like this:

### Deeplinking
There is no minimal action for deeplinking directly to the `Profile` screen. But because the `Settings_root` is not on the stack, pressing UP will reset the params for navigators to the correct ones.

### Tests

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are the tests put here?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We'll move it to the separate package

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ index 7558eb3..b7bb75e 100644
}) : STATE_TRANSITIONING_OR_BELOW_TOP;
}
+
+ const isHomeScreenAndNotOnTop = (route.name === 'BottomTabNavigator' || route.name === 'Workspace_Initial') && isScreenActive !== STATE_ON_TOP;
+ const isHomeScreenAndNotOnTop = (route.name === 'BottomTabNavigator' || route.name === 'Workspace_Initial' || route.name === 'Home' || route.name === 'Search_Bottom_Tab' || route.name === 'Settings_Root' || route.name === 'ReportsSplitNavigator' || route.name === 'Search_Central_Pane') && isScreenActive !== STATE_ON_TOP;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we should change variable name or find some more generic way to handle it?

ACTION_TYPE: {
REPLACE: 'REPLACE',
PUSH: 'PUSH',
NAVIGATE: 'NAVIGATE',

/** These action types are custom for RootNavigator */
SWITCH_POLICY_ID: 'SWITCH_POLICY_ID',

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are those actions described somewhere?

const [isSidebarLoaded] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.IS_SIDEBAR_LOADED, {initialValue: false});
const isActiveRouteHome = useIsCurrentRouteHome();
const isActiveRouteHome = useNavigationState((state) => state?.routes.some((route) => route.name === SCREENS.HOME));

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe this logic can be abstracted to some navigation utils file?

const rootState = navigationRef.getRootState() as State<RootStackParamList>;
const lastSearchRoute = rootState.routes.filter((route) => route.name === SCREENS.SEARCH.CENTRAL_PANE).at(-1);
const rootState = navigationRef.getRootState() as State<RootNavigatorParamList>;
const lastSearchRoute = rootState.routes.filter((route) => route.name === SCREENS.SEARCH.ROOT).at(-1);

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you maybe use findLast here?

@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ jest.mock('@react-navigation/native', () => {
const actualNav = jest.requireActual<typeof Navigation>('@react-navigation/native');
return {
...actualNav,
useNavigationState: () => true,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why does it return boolean?


function switchPolicyAfterInteractions(newPolicyID: string | undefined) {
InteractionManager.runAfterInteractions(() => {
Navigation.navigateWithSwitchPolicyID({policyID: newPolicyID});
navigationRef.dispatch({type: CONST.NAVIGATION.ACTION_TYPE.SWITCH_POLICY_ID, payload: {policyID: newPolicyID}});

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Isn't it too detailed to be called in non-navigation file?

@@ -35,19 +43,37 @@ function BaseSidebarScreen() {
return;
}

Navigation.navigateWithSwitchPolicyID({policyID: undefined});
// Otherwise, if the workspace is already loaded, we don't need to do anything
const topmostReport = navigationRef.getRootState()?.routes.findLast((route) => route.name === NAVIGATORS.REPORTS_SPLIT_NAVIGATOR);

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same with detailed here.

<BaseSidebarScreen />
</FreezeWrapper>
);
return <BaseSidebarScreen />;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this component needed then?

} else {
// Otherwise, navigate to the specific route defined in "backTo" with a country parameter
Navigation.navigate(appendParam(backTo, 'country', option.value));
// Set compareParams to false because we want to goUp to this particular screen and update params (country).

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we still use goUp nomenclature?

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.

4 participants