[No QA] Create Automation for when main fail by rayane-d · Pull Request #34262 · Expensify/App

rayane-d · 2024-01-10T16:31:24Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #34110
PROPOSAL:

Tests

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 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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2024-01-10T16:31:29Z

@jjcoffee 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]

jjcoffee · 2024-01-10T16:38:01Z

@rayane-djouah Thanks for the PR! Would you mind sharing how you tested it?

rayane-d · 2024-01-10T16:45:42Z

@jjcoffee I tested it on a sample repo https://github.com/rayane-djouah/testworkflow
and I used docs from https://github.com/actions/github-script/blob/main/README.md and https://octokit.github.io/rest.js/v20

rayane-d · 2024-01-10T18:25:07Z

@jjcoffee I tested the workflow on my sample repo and it is working correctly.
Here is the created issue:
rayane-d/testworkflow#71
and the "Notify on Workflow Failure" github actions job run:
https://github.com/rayane-djouah/testworkflow/actions/runs/7479177460/job/20355771683

The PR is now ready for review!

rayane-d · 2024-01-12T15:52:24Z

review comments addressed by 10baa72

pecanoro

I would love to see automated tests in workflow_test if it is possible

pecanoro · 2024-01-17T09:17:14Z

@rayane-djouah friendly reminder to address the comments from the review!

rayane-d · 2024-01-17T09:41:45Z

Sorry for the delay, updating today

pecanoro · 2024-01-19T14:06:39Z

@rayane-djouah Another friendly reminder 😄

jjcoffee · 2024-01-23T09:23:19Z

+                });
+                const existingIssue = issues.data.find(issue => issue.title.includes(jobName));
+                if (!existingIssue) {
+                  const issueTitle = `🔍 Investigation Needed: ${ jobName } Failure due to PR Merge 🔍`;


Suggested change

const issueTitle = `🔍 Investigation Needed: ${ jobName } Failure due to PR Merge 🔍`;

const issueTitle = `Investigate workflow job failing on main: ${ jobName }`;

I think it's a bit tidier to phrase the title like this. We should maybe also prepend a priority in square brackets, e.g. [HIGH] but I'm unsure if there's an internal process for assigning the level? cc @pecanoro

Co-authored-by: Joel Davies <joeld.dev@gmail.com>

jjcoffee · 2024-01-24T09:33:50Z

I don't know if you also want to give this a quick look @blimpich?

pecanoro · 2024-01-24T13:20:40Z

@rayane-djouah Can we add some tests to workflow_test?

pecanoro · 2024-01-26T10:45:17Z

@rayane-djouah Friendly bump on my last comment!

rayane-d · 2024-01-28T16:43:26Z

Hi, I apologize for the delay. I've been working on setting up the environment, and it's taken me some time. I'm not too familiar with workflow tests, but I'll do my best to complete them by Friday. Thanks for your understanding!

pecanoro · 2024-02-02T16:05:37Z

@rayane-djouah It's been a week already, could you please take a look at those tests asap? You can find some examples in the folder https://github.com/Expensify/App/tree/672d6ff35fcad63128cc1a23f7584ac6ce85b34a/workflow_tests, it should make it easier to figure out

rayane-d · 2024-02-05T10:58:48Z

Sorry for the delay, I'm working on it them today

rayane-d · 2024-02-06T13:31:32Z

Updated

Co-authored-by: Rocio Perez-Cano <pecanoro@users.noreply.github.com>

pecanoro · 2024-02-06T18:06:34Z

@jjcoffee Can you double check the last changes and reapprove if it looks good? I will approve and merge after

jjcoffee

LGTM!

OSBotify · 2024-02-07T15:41:56Z

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

OSBotify · 2024-02-08T18:43:31Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 1.4.39-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-02-12T14:01:10Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.4.39-8 🚀

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

Create Automation for when main fail

9a0471b

rayane-d requested a review from a team as a code owner January 10, 2024 16:31

melvin-bot Bot requested review from jjcoffee and removed request for a team January 10, 2024 16:31

rayane-d added 3 commits January 10, 2024 18:55

Fix workflow

0ce489b

fix issue body

28143ef

add daily label

0e41b66

address review comments

10baa72

rayane-d mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-02-19] [$500] Create Automation for when main fails in /App #34110

Closed

jjcoffee reviewed Jan 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/workflows/failureNotifier.yml Outdated

jjcoffee reviewed Jan 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/workflows/failureNotifier.yml Outdated

rayane-d requested a review from jjcoffee January 12, 2024 15:53

pecanoro requested changes Jan 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/workflows/failureNotifier.yml

jjcoffee reviewed Jan 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/workflows/failureNotifier.yml

jjcoffee reviewed Jan 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/workflows/failureNotifier.yml Outdated

address review comments

c77614e

rayane-d requested a review from jjcoffee January 19, 2024 16:27

add a warning comment

127b8a7

jjcoffee reviewed Jan 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/workflows/failureNotifier.yml Outdated

jjcoffee reviewed Jan 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/workflows/failureNotifier.yml Outdated

Update issueTitle

9dde0a3

Co-authored-by: Joel Davies <joeld.dev@gmail.com>

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from pecanoro January 24, 2024 09:32

rayane-d added 3 commits February 5, 2024 12:08

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into Create-Automation-for-when-main-fails

1e8282c

add test for failureNotifier workflow

efa0eff

fix lint errors

7a9fe0e

pecanoro requested changes Feb 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread workflow_tests/mocks/failureNotifierMocks.js Outdated

Comment thread workflow_tests/mocks/failureNotifierMocks.js Outdated

rayane-d and others added 4 commits February 6, 2024 18:07

remove comments

d377310

Co-authored-by: Rocio Perez-Cano <pecanoro@users.noreply.github.com>

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into Create-Automation-for-when-main-fails

8430595

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into Create-Automation-for-when-main-fails

7450cc4

run prettier

534a3c7

rayane-d requested a review from pecanoro February 6, 2024 17:29

rayane-d requested a review from jjcoffee February 6, 2024 18:12

jjcoffee approved these changes Feb 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

pecanoro approved these changes Feb 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

pecanoro merged commit c2dc5b6 into Expensify:main Feb 7, 2024

rayane-d deleted the Create-Automation-for-when-main-fails branch February 7, 2024 15:47

rayane-d restored the Create-Automation-for-when-main-fails branch February 7, 2024 16:39

rayane-d mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2024

[No QA] Fix permission error for assigning the new issue for main failure notification #36042

Merged

50 tasks

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Feb 8, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-02-08 #36168

Closed

77 tasks

blimpich mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-05-09] [$250] improve failureNotifier.yml to catch more failures #40612

Closed

	const issueTitle = `🔍 Investigation Needed: ${ jobName } Failure due to PR Merge 🔍`;
	const issueTitle = `Investigate workflow job failing on main: ${ jobName }`;

Conversation

rayane-d commented Jan 10, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jan 10, 2024

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Jan 10, 2024

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Jan 10, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Jan 10, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Jan 12, 2024

Uh oh!

pecanoro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pecanoro commented Jan 17, 2024

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Jan 17, 2024

Uh oh!

pecanoro commented Jan 19, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jjcoffee Jan 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jjcoffee commented Jan 24, 2024

Uh oh!

pecanoro commented Jan 24, 2024

Uh oh!

pecanoro commented Jan 26, 2024

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Jan 28, 2024

Uh oh!

pecanoro commented Feb 2, 2024

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Feb 5, 2024

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Feb 6, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pecanoro commented Feb 6, 2024

Uh oh!

jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 7, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 8, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 12, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

rayane-d commented Jan 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading