Validate phone numbers in different formats

[tienifr]

Current isValidPhone function only validates E.164 standard phone numbers but not others causing misunderstandings and worng usages. This PR:

1. Mark isValidPhone as deprecated
2. Replace isValidPhone with isValidE164Phone
3. Add a new isValidPhoneFormat to validate phone numbers in different formats

significant: 4404589784
international: +1 440-458-9784
e164: +14404589784
national: (440) 458-9784
123.456.7890

Fixed Issues

$ Expensify/App#37723

Tests

1. What unit/integration tests cover your change? What autoQA tests cover your change?

This is a renaming refactor so no need to add new unit tests.

2. What tests did you perform that validates your changed worked?

• Test in Expensify App follow these steps:

1. Go to Workspace > Bank account.
2. Initiate the add BA flow
3. Proceed to Company's phone number step
4. Enter a random US number in national format (xxx) xxx-xxxx, e.g., "(440) 458-9784"
5. Press Next
6. Verify that the phone number is parsed successfully

QA

1. What does QA need to do to validate your changes?

Test in Expensify App follow these steps:

1. Go to Workspace > Bank account.
2. Initiate the add BA flow
3. Proceed to Company's phone number step
4. Enter a random US number in national format (xxx) xxx-xxxx, e.g., "(440) 458-9784"
5. Press Next
6. Verify that the phone number is parsed successfully

2. What areas to they need to test for regressions?

NA

Screenshots

Screen.Recording.2024-03-26.at.18.32.42-compressed.mov

[Pujan92]

@tienifr aren't we supposed to add isValidPhone logic here in common?

[tienifr]

@Pujan92 Yes, I just added it.

[Pujan92]

@Pujan92 Yes, I just added it.

Thanks!

[rlinoz]

This looks good, but may silently break OldDot, so I am waiting a little to review and merge

[Pujan92]

@tienifr Looks good to me, better if you add some tests here for isValidPhone and isValidE164Phone

expensify-common/__tests__/Str-test.js

Lines 110 to 111 in 1247a82

	describe('Str.isValidEmail', () => {

Also some space lint fixes which look straightforward to me, from this PR only 1 error occurred but better if we fix all(5) space errors here.

[rlinoz]

So, I was thinking about this, and how we can merge this without breaking other parts of the application that depend on it.

What if we:

1. Deprecate the isValidPhone and keep its behavior
2. Keep the new isValidE164Phone and mention it in the deprecated message of the isValidPhone
3. Create a new isValidPhoneFormat or something like that, and make it have the behavior of the new isValidPhone, also link this in the deprecated method so people know what method to look for depending on what they want

cc: @Pujan92 @tienifr @grgia

[tienifr]

@Pujan92 What do you think? I think that's not neccessary because we already investigate all usages of the deprecated isValidPhone in App.

[tienifr]

I added unit test.

[Pujan92]

@rlinoz As @tienifr said we have covered all occurrences in the App and going to update it in the App PR, @grgia My only concern is to confirm and check whether any other repo is using this function or not. If it is used then with the version bump we also need to rename those occurrences.

[rlinoz]

This is used in Web-Expensify and Web-Secure.

My point is, if we merge this and someone updates the expensify-common lib in one of the repos before we merge the renaming, we will break this validation.

[Pujan92]

Ah, ok @rlinoz . If that is the case then for the safer side, we can follow the approach that you mentioned here. With that, we may need 2nd PR for removing isValidPhone later once we update the occurrences in all repo to use the new function name.

[tienifr]

@Pujan92 I marked isValidPhone as deprecated following the feedback above, also updated the PR description.

[Pujan92]

Thanks @tienifr, Looks fine to me. cc: @rlinoz @grgia

[rlinoz]

Thanks!