Refactor ValidateLogin

[robertjchen]

Thanks for the review! We're refactoring the old ValidateEmail call to a new ValidateLogin call that no longer requires chaining behavior. This flow is encountered when an account adds a secondary email and clicks on the resulting email validation link, leading them to verify their account on NewDot.

Due to the fact that we no longer chain the subsequent navigation on the result of the API call, we encountered a race condition where we were attempting to navigate before the NavigationComponent was full rendered. The solution was to temporarily cache the intended destination and do the redirect after the component had been fully loaded.

The corresponding backend API change has gone out already, and can be found here: https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/34365

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/218822

Tests

Four use cases can occur with this flow:

1. A user is already logged into NewDot, and the secondary login is NOT validated
2. A user is already logged into NewDot, and their secondary login is already validated and/or the link is invalid
3. A user is NOT logged into NewDot, and their secondary login is NOT validated
4. A user is NOT logged into NewDot, and their secondary login is already validated and/or the link is invalid

Resulting Conditions

• In the first two cases, the user is simply redirected to their last open report/conversation with no error message displayed. Additionally, in Case 1, the account is silently validated behind the scenes.

• In the latter two cases, the user is redirected to the login page. In Case 4, an error message would displayed below the password field stating: "This set password link is invalid or has expired...", while in Case 3, the user would encounter a password prompt.

To test the cases described above:

1. Log into OldDot and add a Secondary Login from Account Settings e.g. [email protected]
2. Log into NewDot, or not, depending on the test cases above.
3. Formulate the URL to emulate clicking a verification link http://localhost:8080/v/<accountID>/<validationCode> on local dev (use script/clitools.sh generator:validateLink), http://staging.new.expensify.com/v/<accountID>/<validationCode> on staging, and http://staging.new.expensify.com/v/<accountID>/<validationCode> on production (or, use an email you have access to)
4. Verify that the resulting conditions described hold true for all 4 cases

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (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 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 included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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
• 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 */
  • Any functional components have the displayName property
  • 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 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(themeColors.componentBG)
• 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

PR Reviewer Checklist

The Contributor+ will copy/paste it into a new comment and complete it after the author checklist is completed

• 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 verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • iOS / native
  • Android / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • Android / Chrome
  • MacOS / Chrome
  • 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 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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.js 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 */
  • Any functional components have the displayName property
  • 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 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(themeColors.componentBG)
• 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Screenshots

Web

Mobile Web

Desktop

Not applicable, validation link opens browser

iOS

Not applicable, validation link opens browser

Android

Not applicable, validation link opens browser

[robertjchen]

Not ready for review just yet!

[robertjchen]

Still in progress, just need to fill out the tests section and provide screenshots once I get the App test environment working locally.

[robertjchen]

Should be ready, thanks for the reviews!

[flodnv]

What's going on with the route things, why did we need these changes here?

[robertjchen]

What's going on with the route things, why did we need these changes here?

Race condition as a result of removing chaining (and the convenient delay that an API call adds). See OP for explanation.

[robertjchen]

Updated and re-tested, thanks!

[NikkiWines]

👍 looks good

[robertjchen]

Merging per https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C02HWMSMZEC/p1661369238865979?thread_ts=1661349810.605389&cid=C02HWMSMZEC

Let me know if there's anything else and I can address in a followup PR 👍 #urgency #iterate

[melvin-bot]

@robertjchen looks like this was merged without passing tests. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

[OSBotify]

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

[robertjchen]

It was?

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by @robertjchen in version: 1.1.90-0 🚀

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

[roryabraham]

What's going on with the route things, why did we need these changes here?

@flodnv Also, it has to do with the fact that we have two navigation containers – one for PublicScreens and one for AuthScreens. When one unmounts, we have to wait for the other to be ready before we can navigate to routes again. Better long-term design would be to have one parent navigation container, and conditionally render screen groups instead of conditionally rendering navigation containers.