e2e: added money request flow e2e test #52751

kirillzyusko · 2024-11-19T10:43:06Z

Explanation of Change

added a new test that covers manual expense tracking;
enhanced e2e API and make it in flat style (now we have step-by-step scenarios with wait actions/functions.

Fixed Issues

$ #30265
PROPOSAL: #30265 (comment)

Tests

run e2e pipeline and be sure it's green (it will be green only after next PR merge, since this PR adds new test).

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

go through the money request flow and make sure it works as before.

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 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

melvin-bot · 2024-11-19T17:20:30Z

Hey! I see that you made changes to our Form component. Make sure to update the docs in FORMS.md accordingly. Cheers!

melvin-bot · 2024-11-19T17:23:33Z

@allgandalf 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]

kirillzyusko · 2024-11-19T17:24:08Z

@hannojg your review would be highly appreciate!

allgandalf · 2024-11-19T17:24:33Z

Does this need a C+ review @kirillzyusko ?

kirillzyusko · 2024-11-20T11:40:45Z

Does this need a C+ review @kirillzyusko ?

I think no, a review from @hannojg should be enough 😊

hannojg · 2024-11-21T09:49:39Z

Code looks fine however the tests seems to be hanging here for me:

hannojg · 2024-11-21T09:50:45Z

CleanShot.2024-11-21.at.10.49.56.mp4

Hm okay no sorry, seems to work, is that long waiting time on the submit money screen expected?

kirillzyusko · 2024-11-21T10:05:28Z

Hm okay no sorry, seems to work, is that long waiting time on the submit money screen expected?

No, I don't think so 🤔 We should clear a text and then press "2" button:

.then(() => E2EClient.sendNativeCommand(NativeCommands.makeClearCommand()))
.then(() => {
    tap('button_2');
})

I think that adb clear command takes so long? The test actually works, right @hannojg? It just takes a lot of time when you clear the text?

I tested on API 30 - which Android version do you test? What I tend to think is that I send KEY_CODE delete 250 times as a long press, on Android it should clear text quite effectively, and some devices seems to optimize it (i. e. if no text is left then they will do an early return). But it looks like in your case it's trying to send the command all 250 times 🙈

hannojg · 2024-11-21T10:18:40Z

The test actually works, right @hannojg? It just takes a lot of time when you clear the text?

Exactly yes. Actually the text is cleared very quickly but then we seem to idle a long time on the screen.

I tested on API 30

Emulator Android version: 14 (API level 34)

But it looks like in your case it's trying to send the command all 250 times 🙈

Probably yes 🤔 any other idea how to implement the clear? Can we capture the text input's ref on react native's side and call .clear() ?

kirillzyusko · 2024-11-21T10:24:39Z

Can we capture the text input's ref on react native's side and call .clear() ?

This is what I wanted to try 🙂

kirillzyusko · 2024-11-21T12:20:49Z

Probably yes 🤔 any other idea how to implement the clear? Can we capture the text input's ref on react native's side and call .clear() ?

Well, it didn't work out. It looks like on second and subsequent runs TextInput contains 0.00 value instead of empty string - that's why I added a step with clear input first. If I call .clear() from ref, then we end up in semi broken state - the input on UI will be empty, but you can't press any button (they will not type any value until you start to press "<" button).

I think adding .clear from ref will add a more complexity - to speed up current codebase I reduced 250 to 3 - it's enough to clear those 4 symbols and works extremely fast. I think for now we can stick to this solution - in future if we need a more complicated solution we always can add it.

hannojg · 2024-11-21T14:55:01Z

Okay, sounds good to me!

kirillzyusko · 2024-11-22T11:34:09Z

@mountiny would it be possible to review/merge it?

mountiny

LGTM @dangrous do you want to review too?

mountiny · 2024-11-22T12:53:11Z

src/CONST.ts

+        OPEN_SUBMIT_EXPENSE: 'open_submit_expense',
+        OPEN_SUBMIT_EXPENSE_CONTACT: 'open_submit_expense_contact',
+        OPEN_SUBMIT_EXPENSE_APPROVE: 'open_submit_expense_approve',


@adhorodyski any feedback here on the event names?

looking into it

dangrous

LGTM2! Will hold merging on a response to https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/52751/files#r1853873389 , but good to go from my perspective

adhorodyski · 2024-11-25T13:00:33Z

src/pages/iou/request/IOURequestStartPage.tsx

@@ -73,6 +74,10 @@ function IOURequestStartPage({
        IOU.initMoneyRequest(reportID, policy, isFromGlobalCreate, transaction?.iouRequestType, transactionRequestType);
    }, [transaction, policy, reportID, iouType, isFromGlobalCreate, transactionRequestType, isLoadingSelectedTab]);

+    useEffect(() => {


should we try to mark this when the page finishes laying out? isn't this effect 'too early'?

Well, my understanding is that effects are fired asynchronously after a component has been mounted, right?

At least for e2e tests it works, because as soon as we get that event we try to interact with elements and we haven't had a case, when interaction failed because of the fact that elements were not rendered yet 🤔

But if you have a suggestion on how to improve timing of these events I'll be happy to hear 😊

Mounted yes, I'm thinking if this is already considered as being 'fully interactive'. I think yes for a form step page like this one, it's fine then :)

adhorodyski

Hey hey, did a review and here are 2 things I've spotted:

Please ensure start/end events are also being triggered during the runtime (not only in tests). Looks like we're triggering start events only in the e2e environment.
Please update these docs with the new events so that we keep track of these metrics in a written form as well.

Apart from that all good, thanks!

kirillzyusko marked this pull request as ready for review November 19, 2024 17:23

kirillzyusko requested a review from a team as a code owner November 19, 2024 17:23

melvin-bot bot requested review from allgandalf and removed request for a team November 19, 2024 17:23

hannojg approved these changes Nov 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

kirillzyusko added 9 commits November 22, 2024 12:04

e2e: added money request flow e2e test

3af050b

fix: nativeID -> testID

c55d0de

refactor: removed unused code

0994d6f

fix: flat test structure

513340f

fix: clear previous field to make sure you always can type a new one

f3ed8a1

fix: remove hardcoded intervals from the test

2123207

fix: TS types

4913fdc

fix: ci

606ac25

fix: speed up clear command

3b54445

kirillzyusko force-pushed the e2e/money-request-flow branch from bddc192 to 3b54445 Compare November 22, 2024 11:05

mountiny assigned hannojg Nov 22, 2024

mountiny approved these changes Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

mountiny requested a review from dangrous November 22, 2024 13:15

dangrous approved these changes Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

adhorodyski reviewed Nov 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

adhorodyski suggested changes Nov 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

e2e: added money request flow e2e test #52751

e2e: added money request flow e2e test #52751

kirillzyusko commented Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 19, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 19, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 19, 2024

allgandalf commented Nov 19, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 20, 2024

hannojg commented Nov 21, 2024

hannojg commented Nov 21, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 21, 2024

hannojg commented Nov 21, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 21, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 21, 2024

hannojg commented Nov 21, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 22, 2024

mountiny left a comment

mountiny Nov 22, 2024

adhorodyski Nov 25, 2024

dangrous left a comment

adhorodyski Nov 25, 2024

kirillzyusko Nov 25, 2024

adhorodyski Nov 25, 2024

adhorodyski left a comment

e2e: added money request flow e2e test #52751

Are you sure you want to change the base?

e2e: added money request flow e2e test #52751

Conversation

kirillzyusko commented Nov 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 19, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 19, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 19, 2024

allgandalf commented Nov 19, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 20, 2024

hannojg commented Nov 21, 2024

hannojg commented Nov 21, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 21, 2024

hannojg commented Nov 21, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 21, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 21, 2024

hannojg commented Nov 21, 2024

kirillzyusko commented Nov 22, 2024

mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny Nov 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adhorodyski Nov 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dangrous left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adhorodyski Nov 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kirillzyusko Nov 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adhorodyski Nov 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adhorodyski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kirillzyusko commented Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading