[No QA] Automate PR checklist batch 2: callback naming, prop docs, file headers by kacper-mikolajczak · Pull Request #95546 · Expensify/App

kacper-mikolajczak · 2026-07-07T22:46:39Z

Explanation of Change

Phase 2 (batch 2) of automating the deterministic PR-checklist items behind the code-inline-reviewer, following the merged Phase 1 (#92926). Converts three more checklist items into auto-discovered reviewer rules and trims the checklists accordingly.

New reviewer rules (.claude/skills/coding-standards/rules/, also registered in SKILL.md):

Rule	Enforces	Replaces checklist item
`CONSISTENCY-12`	Callbacks named for the action, not the event (`toggleReport` not `onIconClick`)	author + reviewer "callback methods ... named for what the method does"
`CONSISTENCY-13`	Component props carry a `/** */` block (presence check; complements `CONSISTENCY-10` which owns style + mixed cases, so no double-flag)	reviewer "each prop has a `/** comment above it */`" (comment clause only - see caveats)
`CONSISTENCY-14`	Non-trivial new files under `src/**` start with a header description comment	author + reviewer "file has a description ... at the top"

Checklist trims

Removed the converted items above from PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md and REVIEWER_CHECKLIST.md.
Removed reviewer lines already dead-covered by existing rules: "file is named correctly" (CONSISTENCY-9), and the three Class Component this-binding / render-method items (moot under CLEAN-REACT-8, which bans class components).

Coverage caveats (intentional, reviewed)

Not every removed line was fully automatable. To avoid losing coverage, the following were kept as human reviewer checkboxes rather than removed:

"All props are defined accurately" - the new rules cover only the /** */ comment presence half of the original prop line; semantic accuracy of prop definitions stays human.
"The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else" - not cleanly covered by any rule. CLEAN-REACT-5 targets grouping of unrelated concerns in a state provider, and PERF-6 only the derived-from-props subset; neither captures general "render-only state", so this stays human.

Other intentional scoping:

CONSISTENCY-14 fires on new files under src/**. The reviewer workflow is itself src/**-scoped for now, so non-src files are intentionally out of scope in this batch.
CLEAN-REACT-8 allows error-boundary classes as an exception; such a class would not get the (removed) this-binding guidance. Negligible in practice.

⚠️ Merge ordering

Trimming REVIEWER_CHECKLIST.md shortens it, which re-triggers the regression fixed by #94161 (the reviewer-checklist action caps completed items at count + 2). #94161 must merge before this PR or in-flight reviewer checklists written against the longer template will fail.

Fixed Issues

$ #92599

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

[No QA]

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

github-actions · 2026-07-07T22:47:58Z

All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅
_{Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.}

…headers Add reviewer rules CONSISTENCY-12/13/14 and trim the matching author + reviewer checklist items, plus remove reviewer lines now dead-covered by existing rules (CONSISTENCY-9, CLEAN-REACT-5, CLEAN-REACT-8). Issue: Expensify#92599

…NCY-14 - Restore reviewer checkboxes 'All props are defined accurately' and 'only data in state necessary for rendering' - not covered by rules (13/10 cover only prop-doc presence; CLEAN-REACT-5/PERF-6 don't fully cover render-only state). - Broaden CONSISTENCY-14 from src/libs+src/hooks to all src/** so the removed 'any new file' checklist item is genuinely covered.

kacper-mikolajczak · 2026-07-07T23:01:26Z

CC @marcaaron

melvin-bot · 2026-07-07T23:01:34Z

@huult 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]

That checklist line is removed by this same PR; state the rationale directly.

kacper-mikolajczak · 2026-07-07T23:03:21Z

Woah Melvin, hold you horses! I don't think this PR is so complex it needs three reviewers 😄

huult · 2026-07-07T23:04:01Z

Slack

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 29b555c7f4

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-07-07T23:05:31Z

+
+Flag ONLY when ALL of these are true:
+
+- The change **adds a new file** (not a modification of an existing one) under `src/**`


Preserve header checks for non-src files

Because the manual “any new file” checklist item was removed from both PR checklists, limiting the replacement rule to src/** drops coverage for non-trivial new files elsewhere, such as .github/actions/javascript/**, scripts, or config helpers. The Claude code-review workflow is also path-filtered to src/**, so a PR adding one of those files without a top-of-file description will no longer be prompted by either automation or the human checklist; either keep a checklist item for non-src files or expand the rule/workflow scope.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

While it is a valid concern, it looks like it's mostly a theoretical one as after looking through the files under .github/actions/javascript/** none of them were actually compliant with the checklist rule ever before.

Across all 28 authored .ts files in .github/actions/javascript/**:

0 have a genuine file-description header.

27 open directly with an import (or a type).

The lone "comment" match — markPullRequestsAsDeployed.ts — is just an /* eslint-disable ... */ directive, not a description.

The reviewer is currently scoped for files under src only and extending this might bring more overhead than gain actually. With that said, looping in @marcaaron not to decide on my own 🤜 🤛

Agree completely that it is not a concern.

Thanks for the confirmation!

huult · 2026-07-07T23:06:52Z

@kacper-mikolajczak Could you take a look at Codex's comment?

huult · 2026-07-07T23:09:18Z

429: Too Many Requests
For more on scraping GitHub and how it may affect your rights, please review our Terms of Service (https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service).

huult · 2026-07-07T23:14:29Z

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 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)
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)
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.
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

huult · 2026-07-08T07:47:04Z

@kacper-mikolajczak Could you please update the PR Author Checklist?

kacper-mikolajczak · 2026-07-08T10:47:46Z

@kacper-mikolajczak Could you take a look at Codex's comment?

Commented on, curious what Marc think of it.

@kacper-mikolajczak Could you please update the PR Author Checklist?

Done ✅

marcaaron

LGTM!

marcaaron · 2026-07-09T07:15:53Z

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 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)
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)
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.
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

OSBotify · 2026-07-09T07:23:20Z

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

huult · 2026-07-09T07:25:00Z

LGTM as well. 👍

OSBotify · 2026-07-09T11:07:08Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 9.4.32-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-07-10T13:44:11Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.32-3 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android

melvin-bot Bot assigned kacper-mikolajczak Jul 7, 2026

kacper-mikolajczak mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2026

[No QA] Automate PR checklist batch 2: callback naming, prop docs, file headers #95545

Closed

3 tasks

kacper-mikolajczak added 2 commits July 8, 2026 01:00

kacper-mikolajczak force-pushed the kacper/92599-automate-checklist-batch-2 branch from f4181c4 to 29b555c Compare July 7, 2026 23:00

kacper-mikolajczak marked this pull request as ready for review July 7, 2026 23:01

kacper-mikolajczak requested a review from a team as a code owner July 7, 2026 23:01

melvin-bot Bot requested review from dmkt9, huult and nyomanjyotisa and removed request for a team July 7, 2026 23:01

Drop circular 'Per the PR checklist' citation from CONSISTENCY-14

ef1869b

That checklist line is removed by this same PR; state the rationale directly.

kacper-mikolajczak mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-07-17] PR checklist items the AI reviewer already catches shouldn't require manual verification #92599

Open

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jul 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

marcaaron requested review from marcaaron and removed request for dmkt9 and nyomanjyotisa July 7, 2026 23:21

Expensify deleted a comment from melvin-bot Bot Jul 7, 2026

marcaaron approved these changes Jul 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

marcaaron merged commit 35a2f0a into Expensify:main Jul 9, 2026
15 of 21 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-07-09 #95677

Closed

94 tasks


		Flag ONLY when ALL of these are true:

		- The change adds a new file (not a modification of an existing one) under `src/**`

Uh oh!

Conversation

kacper-mikolajczak commented Jul 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Coverage caveats (intentional, reviewed)

⚠️ Merge ordering

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kacper-mikolajczak commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

kacper-mikolajczak commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

huult commented Jul 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jul 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kacper-mikolajczak Jul 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marcaaron Jul 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

huult Jul 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

huult commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

huult commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

huult commented Jul 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

huult commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

kacper-mikolajczak commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marcaaron commented Jul 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

huult commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

kacper-mikolajczak commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

huult commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

kacper-mikolajczak Jul 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

huult commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

marcaaron commented Jul 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading