Incorporate hasPendingNetworkCheck

[srikarparsi]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #44269
PROPOSAL:

Tests

@OlimpiaZurek and I weren't able to reproduce the issue by closing and opening our laptops. I also don't believe dev calls ping so I think we can test this in staging since the change is relatively straightforward?

• 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

[roryabraham]

this change makes sense to me 👍🏼

[srikarparsi]

Cool, I'll test it out tomorrow and we could merge. Also cc @OlimpiaZurek since you chimed in here

[OlimpiaZurek]

I guess we can simplify this condition a bit:
reachabilityShouldRun: () => !hasPendingNetworkCheck && (hasPendingNetworkCheck = true),

[adhorodyski]

tbh I find the initial implementation provided easier to follow (less cognitively demanding).

What I'd think about though is limiting the nesting further more by introducing an early return (reverting the boolean check).

reachabilityShouldRun: () => {
-    if (!hasPendingNetworkCheck) {
-         hasPendingNetworkCheck = true;
-          return true;
-     }
-     return false;
+   if (hasPendingNetworkCheck) {
+     return false;
+   }
+
+   hasPendingNetworkCheck = true;
+   return true;
},

[melvin-bot]

@rushatgabhane 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]

[iwiznia]

I see this variable is used in recheckNetworkConnection... I think that's just a manual call to check for the connection, is that correct?
And if so, why would we need to update this variable both here and in the current place we are updating it?

[srikarparsi]

Ah yeah you're right. I'll fix that since any check including NetInfo.refresh() will now check for the state first.

[srikarparsi]

Fixed this.

I kept

if (hasPendingNetworkCheck) {
        return;
    }

so that we only see the [NetworkConnection] recheck NetInfo Log when necessary. Otherwise, we would see the log every 60s. But I can remove it if we want to add the Log to reachabilityShouldRun. The only problem with this is we won't be able to differentiate whether it came from the automatic or manual recheck.

[roryabraham]

nice improvement 👍🏼

[roryabraham]

hmmmm actually, testing this locally (using the staging server + web proxy), and I've found that even though I get a response to Ping, the reachabilityTest callback is never being executed, and we're getting stuck offline.

@srikarparsi did you test this out? It kind of seems like it breaks the whole app, but maybe I'm just holding something wrong...

[roryabraham]

Also, I just realized another edge-case we missed. We have reachabilityRequestTimeout set to 10 seconds, but if a request times out then I don't think that the reachabilityTest callback will run, because no response is received. In that case, we'd get stuck with hasPendingNetworkCheck = true, and be stuck offline.

[roryabraham]

So I think we'd need to:

1. Start our own timer every time we set hasPendingNetworkCheck to true
2. Cancel the timeout in reachabilityTest (when we got a response)
3. When the timeout is up, set hasPendingNetworkCheck to false

But overall, thinking about this change, I wonder if it would make more sense to make the change upstream in react-native-netinfo? It seems like a library issue if it's sending multiple reachability requests in parallel?

[OlimpiaZurek]

I checked this solution and encountered the same problem – I'm getting stuck offline. I also tried solution with timer, but have the same result. @roryabraham Can you elaborate more about this idea? For me Netinfo seems to work stable.

[srikarparsi]

@srikarparsi did you test this out? It kind of seems like it breaks the whole app, but maybe I'm just holding something wrong...

@OlimpiaZurek and I weren't able to reproduce the issue by closing and opening our laptops. I also don't believe dev calls ping so I think we can test this in staging since the change is relatively straightforward?

I left this comment in the description because I wasn't sure how to. Do you think you could point me to instructions or an example of using the staging server + web proxy to test this?

I agree, I also think we should make any changes upstream. Because NetInfo should not send multiple requests in parallel. It should also already send a request after a period of time when the request is failing (which is insinuated by reachabilityShortTimeout so I don't think we should have ever needed to create this PR

[srikarparsi]

Closing this PR as explained a little in this comment. First, I think we should take out redundant functionality (the recheck interval) because that is what is causing the problem. And figure out if it's a problem with our implementation or NetInfo and make an upstream fix if needed.