ignore periods on search #8375

mateusbra · 2022-03-30T19:27:25Z

Details

Ignore periods on searching reports

Fixed Issues

$ #8007

Tests

Open app
Hit search on top
Type any email with the period and hit search
Now we should be able to find same email with or without periods

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (PR Author) Checklist

PR Reviewer Checklist

QA Steps

Open app
Hit search on top
Type any email with the period and hit search
Now we should be able to find same email with or without periods

Screenshots

Web

Mobile Web

Desktop

iOS

Android

mateusbra · 2022-03-30T22:18:01Z

At this point we still have the edge case @Santhosh-Sellavel said on #8007 (comment)

I think we could do:

((recentReportOptions.length === 0 && personalDetailsOptions.length === 0) || && _.every(selectedOptions, option => option.login !== searchValue)

here:

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Lines 577 to 585 in 6a3759b

    
           let userToInvite = null; 
        
           if (searchValue 
        
               && recentReportOptions.length === 0 
        
               && personalDetailsOptions.length === 0 
        
               && !isCurrentUser({login: searchValue}) 
        
               && _.every(selectedOptions, option => option.login !== searchValue) 
        
               && ((Str.isValidEmail(searchValue) && !Str.isDomainEmail(searchValue)) || Str.isValidPhone(searchValue)) 
        
               && (!_.find(loginOptionsToExclude, loginOptionToExclude => loginOptionToExclude.login === searchValue.toLowerCase())) 
        
               && (searchValue !== CONST.EMAIL.CHRONOS || Permissions.canUseChronos(betas))

What do you think @Santhosh-Sellavel?

Santhosh-Sellavel · 2022-03-31T18:30:00Z

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

            searchTerms.push(personalDetail.login);
+            searchTerms.push(personalDetail.login.replace(/\./g, ''));


Do we need both here?

I think we won't need line 177 anymore

Santhosh-Sellavel · 2022-03-31T18:50:45Z

At this point we still have the edge case @Santhosh-Sellavel said on #8007 (comment)

I think we could do:
((recentReportOptions.length === 0 && personalDetailsOptions.length === 0) || && _.every(selectedOptions, option => option.login !== searchValue)
here:

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

Lines 577 to 585 in 6a3759b

let userToInvite = null;

if (searchValue

&& recentReportOptions.length === 0

&& personalDetailsOptions.length === 0

&& !isCurrentUser({login: searchValue})

&& _.every(selectedOptions, option => option.login !== searchValue)

&& ((Str.isValidEmail(searchValue) && !Str.isDomainEmail(searchValue)) || Str.isValidPhone(searchValue))

&& (!_.find(loginOptionsToExclude, loginOptionToExclude => loginOptionToExclude.login === searchValue.toLowerCase()))

&& (searchValue !== CONST.EMAIL.CHRONOS || Permissions.canUseChronos(betas))

What do you think @Santhosh-Sellavel?

No bad idea. It would produce incorrect results.

Santhosh-Sellavel · 2022-03-31T19:08:17Z

@mateusbra
Any one of the following checks would do.

 && ((recentReportOptions.length + personalDetailsOptions.length) === 0 || _.contains(searchValue, '.'))

&& ((recentReportOptions.length + personalDetailsOptions.length) === 0
|| (!_.find(loginOptionsToExclude, loginOptionToExclude => loginOptionToExclude.login === searchValue.toLowerCase())))

cc: @stitesExpensify

mateusbra · 2022-04-05T17:28:48Z

@Santhosh-Sellavel do you think there's something we have to change in addition?

marcaaron · 2022-04-05T23:48:10Z

src/libs/OptionsListUtils.js

-        && recentReportOptions.length === 0
-        && personalDetailsOptions.length === 0
+        && ((recentReportOptions.length + personalDetailsOptions.length) === 0
+        || (!_.find(loginOptionsToExclude, loginOptionToExclude => loginOptionToExclude.login === searchValue.toLowerCase())))


thought: It might help readability if we just extract this whole if block to a method like canAddUserToInvite()? It looks pretty crazy and we are duplicating some logic for the login options.

I have this feeling too.

What do you think of changing the if block to:

if (canAddUserToInvite(searchValue,recentReportOptions,personalDetailsOptions,loginOptionsToExclude,selectedOptions,loginOptionsToExclude))

adding the method:

function canAddUserToInvite(searchValue,recentReportOptions,personalDetailsOptions,loginOptionsToExclude,selectedOptions){ const canAddUserToInvite = searchValue && ((recentReportOptions.length + personalDetailsOptions.length) === 0 || (!_.find(loginOptionsToExclude, loginOptionToExclude => loginOptionToExclude.login === searchValue.toLowerCase()))) && !isCurrentUser({login: searchValue}) && _.every(selectedOptions, option => option.login !== searchValue) && ((Str.isValidEmail(searchValue) && !Str.isDomainEmail(searchValue)) || Str.isValidPhone(searchValue)) && (!_.find(loginOptionsToExclude, loginOptionToExclude => loginOptionToExclude.login === searchValue.toLowerCase())) return canAddUserToInvite; }

we are duplicating some logic for the login options.

Yes

thinking A = (!_.find(loginOptionsToExclude, loginOptionToExclude => loginOptionToExclude.login === searchValue.toLowerCase()))
and B = (recentReportOptions.length + personalDetailsOptions.length) === 0
We have A && (A || B), its a redundant logic, we could change to A.
A && (A || B) = A , so we could discard the B logic keeping the same behavior:

function canAddUserToInvite(searchValue,loginOptionsToExclude,selectedOptions){ const canAddUserToInvite = searchValue && !isCurrentUser({login: searchValue}) && _.every(selectedOptions, option => option.login !== searchValue) && ((Str.isValidEmail(searchValue) && !Str.isDomainEmail(searchValue)) || Str.isValidPhone(searchValue)) && (!_.find(loginOptionsToExclude, loginOptionToExclude => loginOptionToExclude.login === searchValue.toLowerCase())) return canAddUserToInvite; }

let me know what you guys think before I push some changes to it

Yeah that's a lot of variables for a method, but cleaning it up would be an improvement. We could also maybe making it less of a giant ternary that is hard to make sense out of and use extra variables and if statements (but let's pause that for a second).

As for the redundancy, I agree with the assessment that B would be unneeded - but is the proposal to remove the code to check for available options? Why was the change added in the first place?

this change was added in order to prevent this edge case @Santhosh-Sellavel found on #8007 (comment) , so we needed to show user to invite even when it doesn't found a result from search(when lenghts == 0)

@marcaaron nice one! may I commit all thoses changes?

Sorry, @marcaaron for the confusion.

You are right,

looking at loginOptionsToExclude doesn’t make sense.

The confusion originated from my suggestions here. #8375 (comment) those were two quick suggestions.

But we would really avoided this conversation if @mateusbra went with first suggestion, because this occurs only when search has dot.

&& ((recentReportOptions.length + personalDetailsOptions.length) === 0 || _.contains(searchValue, '.'))

But this is the better & simpler solution, unfortunately we both missed to foresee

!_.find(personalDetailsOptions.concat(recentReportOptions), option => option.login === searchValue.toLowerCase());

Sorry @Santhosh-Sellavel I thought the second sugestion you proposed was better 😅, but now I think the misunderstoods were solved.

I commited the changes, if you think its better to use the first suggestion from #8375 (comment) please tell me.

Santhosh-Sellavel

Need to add tests for this new case in OptionsListUtilsTest.js

mateusbra · 2022-04-07T21:20:30Z

Need to add tests for this new case in OptionsListUtilsTest.js

Working on it

…periods

marcaaron · 2022-04-08T19:21:08Z

tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.js

+
+        // Then we expect to have the personal detail with period filtered
+        expect(results.recentReports.length).toBe(1);
+        expect(results.recentReports[0].text).toBe('The Flash');


Can we add a test for the userToInvite case we are discussing above?

mateusbra · 2022-04-13T17:44:47Z

I added the tests and commited the changes guys! Take a look when you can.

cc: @marcaaron
cc: @Santhosh-Sellavel

Santhosh-Sellavel · 2022-04-13T19:23:16Z

PR Reviewer Checklist

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 verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- iOS / native
- Android / native
- iOS / Safari
- Android / Chrome
- MacOS / Chrome
- 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 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 was added in all src/languages/* files
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by tagging the marketing team 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
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 */
- Any functional components have the displayName property
- 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 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(themeColors.componentBG)
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.

Santhosh-Sellavel · 2022-04-13T19:27:09Z

@mateusbra

Everything looks good, testing steps can include an example of search terms & results.

Santhosh-Sellavel

Looks good to me, tests well.

@stitesExpensify Will leave it you!

stitesExpensify · 2022-04-13T21:03:24Z

Thanks for the input everyone! Looking now

OSBotify · 2022-04-13T22:15:20Z

✋ 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 · 2022-04-21T00:20:51Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by @stitesExpensify in version: 1.1.56-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2022-04-25T22:20:13Z

🚀 Deployed to production by @francoisl in version: 1.1.56-0 🚀

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

ignore periods on search

b6610ba

mateusbra requested a review from marcaaron as a code owner March 30, 2022 19:27

Santhosh-Sellavel reviewed Mar 31, 2022

View reviewed changes

removed unnecessary push to searchTerms and solved edge case

bd09df6

mateusbra requested a review from Santhosh-Sellavel March 31, 2022 19:59

marcaaron reviewed Apr 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

marcaaron assigned mateusbra Apr 5, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel suggested changes Apr 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

added test unit in order to cover the search with results containing …

1b2e519

…periods

mateusbra requested a review from a team as a code owner April 7, 2022 21:25

melvin-bot bot requested review from Santhosh-Sellavel and stitesExpensify and removed request for a team April 7, 2022 21:25

marcaaron reviewed Apr 8, 2022

View reviewed changes

mateusbra added 2 commits April 11, 2022 10:47

added tests for userToInvite

2d5e311

refactor noOptions, noOptionsMatchExactly

cd963aa

marcaaron approved these changes Apr 13, 2022

View reviewed changes

Santhosh-Sellavel approved these changes Apr 13, 2022

View reviewed changes

stitesExpensify approved these changes Apr 13, 2022

View reviewed changes

stitesExpensify merged commit fd23073 into Expensify:main Apr 13, 2022

yuwenmemon mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2022

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2022-04-20 #8707

Closed

54 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2022

[HOLD for payment 2022-05-02] Feature Request: Ignore periods when searching for a user by their email address #8007

Closed

0xmiroslav mentioned this pull request Oct 21, 2022

[HOLD for payment 2022-12-15] [$2000] Bug: You can't search a room with names like "x.y" reported by @Puneet-here #12026

Closed

mollfpr mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2023-07-24] [$1000] IOS - Showing two different avatars for the same Phone Number #20930

Closed

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

ignore periods on search #8375

ignore periods on search #8375

mateusbra commented Mar 30, 2022

mateusbra commented Mar 30, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel Mar 31, 2022

mateusbra Mar 31, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Mar 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Mar 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mateusbra commented Apr 5, 2022

marcaaron Apr 5, 2022

mateusbra Apr 6, 2022

mateusbra Apr 6, 2022

marcaaron Apr 7, 2022

mateusbra Apr 7, 2022

mateusbra Apr 12, 2022

marcaaron Apr 12, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel Apr 13, 2022

mateusbra Apr 13, 2022

mateusbra Apr 13, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel left a comment

mateusbra commented Apr 7, 2022

marcaaron Apr 8, 2022

mateusbra Apr 11, 2022

mateusbra commented Apr 13, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Apr 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Apr 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Santhosh-Sellavel left a comment

stitesExpensify commented Apr 13, 2022

OSBotify commented Apr 13, 2022

OSBotify commented Apr 21, 2022

OSBotify commented Apr 25, 2022

		searchTerms.push(personalDetail.login);
		searchTerms.push(personalDetail.login.replace(/\./g, ''));

ignore periods on search #8375

ignore periods on search #8375

Conversation

mateusbra commented Mar 30, 2022

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (PR Author) Checklist

PR Reviewer Checklist

QA Steps

Screenshots

Web

Mobile Web

Desktop

iOS

Android

mateusbra commented Mar 30, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Mar 31, 2022 • edited Loading

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Mar 31, 2022 • edited Loading

mateusbra commented Apr 5, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Santhosh-Sellavel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mateusbra commented Apr 7, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mateusbra commented Apr 13, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Apr 13, 2022 • edited Loading

PR Reviewer Checklist

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Apr 13, 2022 • edited Loading

Santhosh-Sellavel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stitesExpensify commented Apr 13, 2022

OSBotify commented Apr 13, 2022

OSBotify commented Apr 21, 2022

OSBotify commented Apr 25, 2022

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Mar 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Mar 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Apr 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Santhosh-Sellavel commented Apr 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading