fix: [patch react-native-modal] update backdrop animation in strict mode by dominictb · Pull Request #46830 · Expensify/App

dominictb · 2024-08-05T19:11:39Z

Details

There's a bit of change from my original proposal. I tested and figured out that declarative usage of animation in react-native-animatable works pretty well on StrictMode, so the solution is to patch react-native-modal to use animation instead of transition for backdrop, and convert the imperative usage to declarative usage.

Fixed Issues

$ #45385
PROPOSAL: #45385 (comment)

Tests

Pre-requesite: Run the app in development mode with strict mode enabled

Long press on any report in LHN

Verify that: the popover backdrop is gray, and the transition is smooth as in staging/prod

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Pre-requesite: Run the app in development mode with strict mode enabled

Long press on any report in LHN

Verify that: the popover backdrop is gray, and the transition is smooth as in staging/prod

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

aweb.webm

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.webm

iOS: Native

ios.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

iosweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MacOS: Desktop

web.mov

melvin-bot · 2024-08-05T19:11:43Z

@allroundexperts 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]

…t-mode

to fix the performance test.

allroundexperts · 2024-08-14T20:59:29Z

Reviewer Checklist

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 included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
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 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
- 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 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 */
- 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(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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-08-15.at.2.19.09.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-08-15.at.2.18.38.AM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-08-15.at.2.17.22.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-08-15.at.2.09.51.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-08-15.at.2.05.04.AM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-08-15.at.2.09.05.AM.mov

allroundexperts · 2024-08-14T21:29:44Z

patches/react-native-modal+13.0.1.patch

+                backdrop: {
+                    prevOpacity: prevState.backdrop.opacity,
+                    opacity: this.props.backdropOpacity,
+                    duration: this.props.backdropTransitionInTiming,


I'm not sure why you are storing the opacity value which comes from props into state. Why can't you just use it directly from props?

@allroundexperts we need to save both the prevOpacity and opacity of the backdrop, because sometime (for example onPanResponderMove, you might want to animate to a different opacity than props.backdropOpacity. And obviously we need to save the prevOpacity in order to build the correct animation for the backdrop. Hence this implementation.

That's fine. But instead of saving it in the state, can't you just use the usePrevious hook? It would store the previous value in a ref which will prevent additional renders.

react-native-modal is written in class component style.

I don't think my approach will introduce another re-render. It updates everything in a single this.setState call, and it already passed the performance test. Also, it's a bit overkill to get something like usePrevious in this class component.

Ah, makes sense. I did not consider that this was a class component.

…t-mode

allroundexperts

LGTM!

OSBotify · 2024-08-22T08:12:03Z

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

kavimuru · 2024-08-22T17:07:00Z

@dominictb @allroundexperts
We don't have access to dev mode, should we test in staging?

Pre-requesite: Run the app in development mode with strict mode enabled

dominictb · 2024-08-22T17:10:38Z

@kavimuru #44692 based on this issue, you can ask internal engineer to share their dev env. Testing on staging is also fine, but it's more like to ensure things still work as expected.

kavimuru · 2024-08-22T17:11:53Z

Applause QA can't test in dev environment, we will validate in staging environment then.

OSBotify · 2024-08-22T17:27:52Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/flodnv in version: 9.0.24-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-08-22T19:32:39Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/flodnv in version: 9.0.24-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-08-26T22:59:11Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.0.24-5 🚀

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

fix: [patch react-native-modal] update backdrop animation in strict mode

2431437

dominictb requested a review from a team as a code owner August 5, 2024 19:11

melvin-bot bot requested review from allroundexperts and removed request for a team August 5, 2024 19:11

dominictb added 2 commits August 6, 2024 08:59

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into fix/45385-modal-stric…

5e010d7

…t-mode

fix: group setState ops to avoid extra nested updates in React

f48b542

to fix the performance test.

allroundexperts reviewed Aug 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into fix/45385-modal-stric…

692de92

…t-mode

allroundexperts approved these changes Aug 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from flodnv August 21, 2024 20:56

flodnv approved these changes Aug 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

flodnv merged commit 56f021d into Expensify:main Aug 22, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-08-22 #47873

Closed

50 tasks

This was referenced Aug 26, 2024

Android - Chat - Screen blinks when open Add attachment option #47972

Closed

Revert "fix: [patch react-native-modal] update backdrop animation in strict mode" #48028

Merged

Conversation

dominictb commented Aug 5, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 5, 2024

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Aug 14, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

allroundexperts Aug 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dominictb Aug 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

allroundexperts Aug 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dominictb Aug 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

allroundexperts Aug 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

allroundexperts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 22, 2024

Uh oh!

kavimuru commented Aug 22, 2024

Uh oh!

dominictb commented Aug 22, 2024

Uh oh!

kavimuru commented Aug 22, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 22, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 22, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Aug 26, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

dominictb commented Aug 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts commented Aug 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading