Fix onboarding modal that flashes for user transitioning from OldDot

[blazejkustra]

Details

Link to thread on slack that explains the issue.

There are two issues currently:

1. When the user has a slow internet connection, the app is rendered but nvp_onboarding is undefined for a second, because of the default false value here, the modal is displayed. The nvp_onboarding is then updated to either:
   [] (empty array) - modal disappears
   { signupQualifier: whatever } - modal is still displayed as we are hitting the default value
2. ☝️ As
   @vit
   mentioned above, nvp_onboarding could be an object when transitioning from OldDot to NewDot if there are other values in the NVP such as signupQualifier (+ hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow is undefined). With the current default value the modal is shown, which isn't intended.

Assuming we want to show the modal only for the users with the NVP where hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow is set to false. I think the easiest fix would be to change the default value in the hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlowSelector to true.

In other words, the modal will be displayed only when the nvp is loaded and hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow === false

Fixed Issues

$ #49245
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

• Verify that when creating a new account the onboarding modal is shown
• Verify that when transitioning from OldDot to NewDot the onboarding modal is not shown (the easiest way to recreate is to create an account on OldDot and then after that login on NewDot with the same email)
• Try setting different values for nvp_onboarding on OldDot with this snippet NVP.set('onboarding', VALUE), do it in the OldDot console. (different values to test are: {}, {test: true}, {hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow:true}, {hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow:false}, null)
  • Only for hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow:false the modal should be shown

⚠️ Verify that the above run also on poor internet connection (Inspect -> Network -> Slow 4G)

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests

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 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 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 form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

test.1.mov

[mountiny]

Are you sure we can fully remove this?

[blazejkustra]

After consulting with @adamgrzybowski I'm not so sure 😅

[blazejkustra]

I'll revert it for now, as in some flows we might never hit the redirect to onboarding because of this change.

[blazejkustra]

Need more testing and I don't want to block this PR, what do you think we could clean the onboarding logic a bit in a follow-up PR?

[mountiny]

I think the logic there is redundant a bit, right? we check if the modal should show and then we call Welcome.isOnboardingFlowCompleted which does the same technically, so we could refactor this to only check hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlowSelector and run OnboardingFlow.startOnboardingFlow() if the modal should show.

but we can leave this for later

[blazejkustra]

Oh right, that looks redundant too. I was focusing around the fact that we also navigate the user in NavigationRoot.tsx:

        // If the user haven't completed the flow, we want to always redirect them to the onboarding flow.
        // We also make sure that the user is authenticated.
        if (!NativeModules.HybridAppModule && !hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow && authenticated && !shouldShowRequire2FAModal) {
            const {adaptedState} = getAdaptedStateFromPath(getOnboardingInitialPath(), linkingConfig.config);
            return adaptedState;
        }

I think we should create an issue to clean this up a bit, because I don't see a reason why we have many places in the code where we redirect to onboarding flow 🤷‍♂️

[melvin-bot]

@ikevin127 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]

[allgandalf]

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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-09-16.at.8.26.26.PM.mov

Screen.Recording.2024-09-16.at.8.30.11.PM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-09-16.at.8.37.57.PM.mov

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-09-16.at.8.46.48.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-09-16.at.8.42.43.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-09-16.at.8.52.41.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-09-16.at.8.54.19.PM.mov

[allgandalf]

Assuming we want to show the modal only for the users with the NVP where hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow is set to false. I think the easiest fix would be to change the default value in the hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlowSelector to true.

In other words, the modal will be displayed only when the nvp is loaded and hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow === false

The P/S makes sense to me and is logical too, working on videos now;

[allgandalf]

Change is simple and works well, have tested for all platform 👍

[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.

[kavimuru]

@blazejkustra I am not sure if the QA team can run this step, could you help?

Try setting different values for nvp_onboarding on OldDot with this snippet NVP.set('onboarding', VALUE), do it in the OldDot console. (different values to test are: {}, {test: true}, {hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow:true}, {hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow:false}, null)
Only for hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow:false the modal should be shown

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.36-0 🚀

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

[blazejkustra]

@blazejkustra I am not sure if the QA team can run this step, could you help?

@kavimuru Yes, you should be able to do it on staging as shown on the video from description

[mountiny]

@kavimuru correct, you have to do it from the testing account from oldDot from console on inbox page

[IuliiaHerets]

We need clearer instructions on step 2, when we create an account on OldDot we are redirected to NewDot and the Onboarding modal is present.
Can you help us, please?

bandicam.2024-09-17.14-16-40-845.mp4

[blazejkustra]

@IuliiaHerets Oh right, when you use a public domain like gmail.com in your email you are automatically redirected to NewDot and the onboarding modal should be displayed. However that's not the case when it’s a new user logging on private domain like @expensify.com (or @swmansion.com) for example in OldDot, they would not be redirected and they would not get this NVP therefore modal would not be displayed when logging on NewDot.

Does that clear things up?

[IuliiaHerets]

@blazejkustra We can use Gmail and @applause.expensifail.com accounts. With the @applause.expensifail.com account we don't have an Onboarding modal at all.
How should we test then the PR?

[blazejkustra]

With the @applause.expensifail.com account we don't have an Onboarding modal at all.

When account was created on OldDot:

• for private domains there is no onboarding modal when going to newdot
• for public domains user is redirected and onboarding modal is shown

When account was created on NewDot, the modal should be displayed. I guess that should do it @IuliiaHerets

[mountiny]

Yes i think you will need to test by;

1. create new expensifail account in olddot
2. Sign in to newdot using that new account from first step
3. Verify the modal does not show up

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.0.36-2 🚀

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

[andriivitiv]

@blazejkustra This PR introduced this bug: #49404

It also breaks my PR #49092

[blazejkustra]

@CyberAndrii Fix is on its way, no need for a revert