Skip to content

[No QA] Create RBR tests for broken card feed connection#83456

Merged
carlosmiceli merged 1 commit intomainfrom
valforte/createCardFeedRBRTest
Feb 26, 2026
Merged

[No QA] Create RBR tests for broken card feed connection#83456
carlosmiceli merged 1 commit intomainfrom
valforte/createCardFeedRBRTest

Conversation

@Valforte
Copy link
Contributor

@Valforte Valforte commented Feb 25, 2026

Explanation of Change

Created test cases for Company Cards RBR, specifically broken card feed or plaid connection

Fixed Issues

$ #69917
PROPOSAL:

Tests

No QA

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

No QA

QA Steps

No QA

  • 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
  • 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 is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • 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.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • 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

@Valforte Valforte requested a review from a team as a code owner February 25, 2026 15:28
@Valforte Valforte self-assigned this Feb 25, 2026
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from ahmedGaber93 and removed request for a team February 25, 2026 15:28
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 25, 2026

@ahmedGaber93 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]

@Valforte Valforte requested review from a team and removed request for ahmedGaber93 February 26, 2026 20:17
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from carlosmiceli and removed request for a team February 26, 2026 20:18
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 26, 2026

@carlosmiceli 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]

@carlosmiceli
Copy link
Contributor

@MelvinBot could you review?

@MelvinBot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for putting these tests together! I reviewed the PR against the cardFeedErrorsConfig.compute() source in src/libs/actions/OnyxDerived/configs/cardFeedErrors.ts. Here's my feedback:

What looks good

  • Well-structured test organization covering both direct bank (OAuth) and Plaid feed types
  • Good use of helper functions (createCard, createWorkspaceCardsList) to reduce boilerplate
  • Tests cover both data sources (globalCardList and allWorkspaceCards)
  • The parameterized test for BROKEN_CONNECTION_IGNORED_STATUSES is a nice touch
  • Recovery scenario tests (connection broken → fixed) are valuable
  • Inactive card filtering (CLOSED / DEACTIVATED) is tested via allWorkspaceCards
  • All CI checks pass

Suggestions for additional coverage

The compute() function has several code paths beyond broken connections that this test file could cover. Since the file is named CompanyCardsRBRTest (not just broken connections), consider adding tests for these:

  1. Workspace-level errors — The function checks workspaceCardFeedsStatus?.[workspaceAccountID]?.errors (line 101-102 in cardFeedErrors.ts) and sets hasWorkspaceErrors, which also triggers shouldShowRBR. This path is closely related to the feed-level errors already tested but uses a different data source.

  2. Card-level errors (card.errors, card.errorFields, card.pendingAction) — These are aggregated into cardErrors (lines 104-117) and affect hasFeedErrors, which triggers RBR. Currently only feed-level errors from cardFeeds are tested.

  3. Inactive cards in globalCardList — The current inactive card tests only use allWorkspaceCards. Notably, globalCardList cards are not filtered by filterInactiveCards() (compare line 157 vs 174 in the source). A test showing that a closed card in globalCardList still triggers RBR would document this behavioral difference, which could be intentional or a latent issue worth flagging.

  4. fundID edge casesaddErrorsForCard returns early if workspaceAccountID is NaN (line 87-89). A test with fundID: undefined or fundID: 'invalid' would verify this guard works correctly.

These are all optional improvements — the current tests are solid for the broken connection scenario. Up to you whether to expand scope here or in a follow-up.


Overall: The tests are well-written and the PR is in good shape. The suggestions above are non-blocking improvements.

@carlosmiceli
Copy link
Contributor

carlosmiceli commented Feb 26, 2026

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
  • I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android: HybridApp
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: HybridApp
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • 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 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.ts 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.
  • For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
  • 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: HybridApp
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: HybridApp
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

@carlosmiceli carlosmiceli merged commit c616e18 into main Feb 26, 2026
30 of 33 checks passed
@carlosmiceli carlosmiceli deleted the valforte/createCardFeedRBRTest branch February 26, 2026 20:50
mountiny added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2026
PR #83439 removed areAllConnectionsSet from DerivedValueContext type,
while PR #83456 added this test using that property. Remove the stale
property from the test mock to fix the typecheck.

Made-with: Cursor
lakchote pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2026
The areAllConnectionsSet property was lost during the merge of PR #83456
to main. The test file expects this property on DerivedValueContext but
the type definition and index.ts were missing it, causing typecheck to
fail.

Co-authored-by: Puneet Lath <puneetlath@users.noreply.github.com>
lakchote pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2026
The previous revert (dd82e84) removed areAllConnectionsSet from
DerivedValueContext, but CompanyCardsRBRTest.ts on main (added by
PR #83456) requires this property, causing a typecheck failure.

Co-authored-by: Puneet Lath <puneetlath@users.noreply.github.com>
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/carlosmiceli in version: 9.3.27-0 🚀

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

szymonzalarski98 pushed a commit to callstack-internal/Expensify-App that referenced this pull request Mar 2, 2026
The areAllConnectionsSet property was lost during the merge of PR Expensify#83456
to main. The test file expects this property on DerivedValueContext but
the type definition and index.ts were missing it, causing typecheck to
fail.

Co-authored-by: Puneet Lath <puneetlath@users.noreply.github.com>
szymonzalarski98 pushed a commit to callstack-internal/Expensify-App that referenced this pull request Mar 2, 2026
The previous revert (dd82e84) removed areAllConnectionsSet from
DerivedValueContext, but CompanyCardsRBRTest.ts on main (added by
PR Expensify#83456) requires this property, causing a typecheck failure.

Co-authored-by: Puneet Lath <puneetlath@users.noreply.github.com>
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Mar 2, 2026

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.3.27-8 🚀

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants