[HOOK REFACTOR] MoneyRequestConfirmationList

[luacmartins]

Details

Refactors MoneyRequestConfirmationList to use hooks

Fixed Issues

$ #16162

Tests

1. Request money from another user + > Request money
2. Verify that you can go through the entire flow without errors
3. Do the same for Split bill, verifying that you can select and unselect users and the amounts update correctly

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as test 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 / 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 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review 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
• 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
  • 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(themeColors.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 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.
• I have checked off every checkbox in the PR author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

[s77rt]

This will conflict with #17964. Can we go in parallel?

[luacmartins]

@s77rt how close are we to merging that PR? #17964.

[s77rt]

We were close until we encountered a bug that the solution is anti-pattern 😅. We are discussing this on slack. It may take some days and we have some conflicts in that PR already so I think the hook refactor is okay. I don't think we have a conflicting logic after all just some code rearrangements and we should be good. So let's go in parallel 🚀

Thank you for your time considering this and sorry that I brought this up so quickly, I read MoneyRequestConfirmationList I commented 😁.

[luacmartins]

Sounds good! No worries, thanks for putting that issue in my radar!

[melvin-bot]

@mananjadhav @youssef-lr One of you needs to 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]

[mananjadhav]

Reviewed partially, will get to it in the second half along with the testing.

[luacmartins]

@mananjadhav conflict resolved!

[mananjadhav]

@luacmartins Are you getting this error? When we split the bill with the same group of users twice? I can see it's a backend error.

{
	"code": 666,
	"jsonCode": 666,
	"type": "Expensify\\Libs\\Error\\ExpError",
	"UUID": "61F4D57E-F025-4289-B7F0-483FA8EB820D",
	"message": "There is a previously existing chat between these users.",
	"title": "",
	"data": {
		"onyxData": [{
			"onyxMethod": "merge",
			"key": "report_5887276268843882",
			"value": {
				"errorFields": {
					"createChat": {
						"1686024310413050": "There is a previously existing chat between these users."
					}
				}
			}
		}, {
			"onyxMethod": "merge",
			"key": "report_3575856262037512",
			"value": {
				"errorFields": {
					"createChat": {
						"1686024310413041": "There is a previously existing chat between these users."
					}
				}
			}
		}, {
			"onyxMethod": "merge",
			"key": "report_219473781256037",
			"value": {
				"errorFields": {
					"createChat": {
						"1686024310413042": "There is a previously existing chat between these users."
					}
				}
			}
		}]
	},
	"htmlMessage": "",
	"onyxData": [{
		"onyxMethod": "merge",
		"key": "report_5887276268843882",
		"value": {
			"errorFields": {
				"createChat": {
					"1686024310413050": "There is a previously existing chat between these users."
				}
			}
		}
	}, {
		"onyxMethod": "merge",
		"key": "report_3575856262037512",
		"value": {
			"errorFields": {
				"createChat": {
					"1686024310413041": "There is a previously existing chat between these users."
				}
			}
		}
	}, {
		"onyxMethod": "merge",
		"key": "report_219473781256037",
		"value": {
			"errorFields": {
				"createChat": {
					"1686024310413042": "There is a previously existing chat between these users."
				}
			}
		}
	}],
	"requestID": "7d2dc67f3cb03228-BOM"
}

[luacmartins]

@mananjadhav yes, I am getting the same error. That's happening on main too, so I don't think it's a blocker for this PR. Do you wanna report that bug in Slack?

[mananjadhav]

Cool. Then rest of it tests well. I've also marked all the items in the checklist.

@youssef-lr All yours.

[youssef-lr]

LGTM!

[youssef-lr]

@luacmartins @mananjadhav there was conflicts due to this PR I went ahead and resolved them. Please double check.

[Julesssss]

Nice example, this refactor has it all 🤩

[Julesssss]

I think we should QA though. There is a chance that the refactor broke the page.

[mountiny]

Thanks

[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.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.3.26-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 1.3.26-4 🚀

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