[WEB-863] Guard Segment Events Behind AppTrackingTransparency #1799

scottkicks · 2023-03-06T16:35:01Z

📲 What

We should only send segment analytic events if the member has given consent via the AppTrackingTransparency dialog

🤔 Why

If the member doesn't want KS to track their data, then we shouldn't.

🛠 How

Using AppTrackingTransparency library, we can access the current authorization status and use that to gate our KSRAnalytics.track() method.
This should also be behind the Consent Dialog feature flag

✅ Acceptance criteria

If a member's consent permission status has been denied, or has yet to be determined, then no Segment calls should be made
If permission has been authorized (granted) Segment calls should continue being triggered as usual

codecov · 2023-03-06T21:49:46Z

Codecov Report

Merging #1799 (beadd31) into main (2fb519b) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 89.28%.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##             main    #1799    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage   88.92%   88.93%            
========================================
  Files         887      888     +1     
  Lines       80981    81086   +105     
  Branches    21258    21279    +21     
========================================
+ Hits        72015    72114    +99     
- Misses       8204     8207     +3     
- Partials      762      765     +3

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ary/ViewModels/PledgePaymentMethodsViewModel.swift	`93.01% <0.00%> (-0.24%)`	⬇️
Library/Tracking/AppTrackingTransparency.swift	`5.00% <33.33%> (+5.00%)`	⬆️
Library/ViewModels/ProjectPageViewModel.swift	`93.55% <50.00%> (+0.01%)`	⬆️
...ibrary/ViewModels/RewardsCollectionViewModel.swift	`91.73% <50.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
Library/ViewModels/ThanksViewModel.swift	`91.57% <50.00%> (+0.04%)`	⬆️
...rary/TestHelpers/MockAppTrackingTransparency.swift	`60.00% <60.00%> (ø)`
Library/Tracking/KSRAnalyticsTests.swift	`99.43% <96.34%> (-0.17%)`	⬇️
Library/AppEnvironment.swift	`96.18% <100.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
Library/Environment.swift	`94.44% <100.00%> (+0.15%)`	⬆️
Library/TestHelpers/TestCase.swift	`90.14% <100.00%> (+0.58%)`	⬆️
... and 3 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

scottkicks · 2023-03-07T15:18:53Z

based off of the Add CAPI events PR.
I'll merge this one in once that one is done.

msadoon

Almost there, a few things here.

Should we send the IDFA with every call now that's required for every call?
Save the advertisingIdentifier to AppEnvironment so we can use AppEnvironment, instead of recreating the struct everywhere (defeats the purpose of adding it to AppEnvironment)

Library/Tracking/AppTrackingTransparency.swift

Library/AppEnvironment.swift

msadoon · 2023-03-09T15:04:51Z

Library/MockAppTrackingTrasparency.swift

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+import Library
+
+struct MockAppTrackingTransparencyService: AppTrackingTransparencyType {


Nice, good work adding this.

Just check spelling here and can we put this in the TestHelpers folder.

msadoon · 2023-03-09T15:15:12Z

Library/Tracking/KSRAnalytics.swift

+    if featureConsentManagementDialogEnabled() {
+      guard AppEnvironment.current.appTrackingTransparency.authorizationStatus() == .authorized
+      else { return }
+    }
+


can be cleaner with

guard featureConsentManagementDialogEnabled(), AppEnvironment.current.appTrackingTransparency.authorizationStatus() == .authorized else { return }

So given we're requiring IDFA here, would KS want to get IDFA on every call? If that's the case then we can add it to userProperties which is sent up on every call.

Do you think this as simple as adding
props["advertising_identifer"] = AppEnvironment.current.appTrackingTransparency.advertisingIdentifier
to the userProperties method in KSRAnalytics? Or would it require updating the user model with a new property and potentially add too much to this current PR?

msadoon · 2023-03-09T15:22:07Z

Library/ViewModels/PledgePaymentMethodsViewModel.swift

@@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ public final class PledgePaymentMethodsViewModel: PledgePaymentMethodsViewModelT
        let (project, _) = projectSignal

        guard featureFacebookConversionsAPIEnabled(), project.sendMetaCapiEvents == true,
-          let externalId = AppTrackingTransparency.advertisingIdentifier() else { return }
+          let externalId = AppTrackingTransparency().advertisingIdentifier() else { return }


Since we have it in the app environment, we can use AppEnvironment.current.appTrackingTransparency instead of creating a new instance of the struct. The only place we'd need to create that struct is after user is prompted and the dialog returns their answer.

msadoon · 2023-03-09T15:22:50Z

Library/ViewModels/ProjectPageViewModel.swift

@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ public final class ProjectPageViewModel: ProjectPageViewModelType, ProjectPageVi
        let (project, _) = projectAndRefTag

        guard featureFacebookConversionsAPIEnabled(), project.sendMetaCapiEvents,
-          let externalId = AppTrackingTransparency.advertisingIdentifier() else { return }
+          let externalId = AppTrackingTransparency().advertisingIdentifier() else { return }


Same as above.

msadoon · 2023-03-09T15:23:03Z

Library/ViewModels/RewardsCollectionViewModel.swift

@@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ public final class RewardsCollectionViewModel: RewardsCollectionViewModelType,
        let (project, _) = projectAndRefTag

        guard featureFacebookConversionsAPIEnabled(), project.sendMetaCapiEvents,
-          let externalId = AppTrackingTransparency.advertisingIdentifier() else { return }
+          let externalId = AppTrackingTransparency().advertisingIdentifier() else { return }


Same as above.

msadoon · 2023-03-09T15:23:13Z

Library/ViewModels/ThanksViewModel.swift

@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ public final class ThanksViewModel: ThanksViewModelType, ThanksViewModelInputs,
      }

      guard featureFacebookConversionsAPIEnabled(), project.sendMetaCapiEvents,
-        let externalId = AppTrackingTransparency.advertisingIdentifier() else { return }
+        let externalId = AppTrackingTransparency().advertisingIdentifier() else { return }


Same as above.

Library/Tracking/KSRAnalyticsTests.swift

msadoon

Ok all good, great work!
One minor thing - if you could quickly add appTrackingTransparency to replaceEnvironment static func on AppEnvironment that would make it consistent there as well.

msadoon · 2023-03-09T19:30:14Z

Oh yea and get tests to pass ;)

Kickstarter.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj

msadoon

Hey just asking for a few changes on the base TestCase

msadoon · 2023-03-13T16:37:11Z

Library/TestHelpers/TestCase.swift

@@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ internal class TestCase: XCTestCase {
    var calendar = Calendar(identifier: .gregorian)
    calendar.timeZone = TimeZone(identifier: "GMT")!

+    self.optimizelyClient = MockOptimizelyClient()
+      |> \.features .~ [OptimizelyFeature.consentManagementDialogEnabled.rawValue: true]
+


Can you remove this from the base TestCase and put it back into the override setUp for the individual test class? I was thinking about this method.

Create a class level variable MockOptimizelyClient in the override class setup func in PledgeViewModelTests for example, and then update it to false for whatever flags you need to be setup, then update the individual cases that need to be true as you've already done.

right. I was trying to avoid that because there are a few test files and it was easier to add it here. And then remove it once the feature is fully released. Removing it from one place would also be easier. What do you think about that?

Yea that's one way to do it, I just get a bit worried because we might forgot to remove it later. We've left flags in the app for >6 months after release, so that will effect all our testcases until we remove the flag and after that amount of time we might forgot our intent for this change in the base case. Just muddies up the codebase a bit more than necessary.

In general try to scope the change to just the bare minimum if possible. Plus I think it's just as easy to remove the mockOptimizelyClient in the PledgePageViewModelTests as opposed to TestCase.

@msadoon Its a good point. We are making an effort to audit and clean up our flags as we think about moving to firebase as a manager though. There are a lot of test files (24) that have multiple tests (4-7) that are failing which feels like a lot of code changes for this.

I can make a ticket to remove as well so I don't forget to remove from TestCase. It also feels like there are so many places to make the update your suggesting that it would be just as easy to forget to remove this from some of them

If it's not too much work, let's use the class level variables. I now we're trying to figure out Optimizely replacements and then yes we'll go ahead and rip out Optimizely everywhere for the replacement but that work isn't quite finalized yet.

I think the original creators intent of TestCase is not to add customizations of AppEnvironment.
We'll see that withEnvironment( in XCTestCase+AppEnvironment is intended to be customized for every test case.
Likely when we add the replacement for Optimizely, we'll follow this same approach and add it to the withEnvironment( function and customize it in every test case that needs it.

It shouldn't be too much boilerplate right? Because we're updating the class level mockOptimizelyClient not in every test. The only tests that need to change are the the ones that require a true flag. I understand its probably four different files, but it still feels like the tradeoff is worth it and sticks to existing conventions. Also when we have this new replacement for Optimizely, then those files are easy to change with the new dependency because we just go through AppEnvironment.

Ok, looking into this now, it's fine, just do it the way you have in TestCase, I'll approve this. The class level update doesn't really seem to work either.

msadoon

Good to go!

scottkicks added the enhancement label Mar 6, 2023

scottkicks added this to the release-5.6.2 milestone Mar 6, 2023

scottkicks self-assigned this Mar 6, 2023

scottkicks force-pushed the guard-segment-behind-consent branch 2 times, most recently from 6b2e410 to fc53456 Compare March 6, 2023 21:07

scottkicks modified the milestones: release-5.6.2, release-5.7.0 Mar 7, 2023

scottkicks force-pushed the guard-segment-behind-consent branch from fc53456 to f1a39da Compare March 7, 2023 18:30

scottkicks force-pushed the web-970-part-2 branch from 5ee34c9 to 1447d1a Compare March 7, 2023 18:55

Base automatically changed from web-970-part-2 to main March 8, 2023 17:52

scottkicks added 2 commits March 8, 2023 10:16

gate segment events behind tracking consent status and feature flag

d9d5635

formatting

f9bfdea

scottkicks force-pushed the guard-segment-behind-consent branch from 827ce82 to f9bfdea Compare March 8, 2023 18:21

scottkicks marked this pull request as ready for review March 8, 2023 20:12

scottkicks requested a review from msadoon March 8, 2023 20:12

msadoon suggested changes Mar 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

code style updates

7b8d66d

scottkicks force-pushed the guard-segment-behind-consent branch from a96c6bf to 14c600a Compare March 9, 2023 17:09

scottkicks requested a review from msadoon March 9, 2023 17:16

formatting

602a8a9

scottkicks force-pushed the guard-segment-behind-consent branch from 14c600a to 602a8a9 Compare March 9, 2023 17:43

scottkicks added the needs review label Mar 9, 2023

scottkicks added 2 commits March 9, 2023 10:46

format

d4446e5

fix tests

d1eb039

kickstarter deleted a comment from nativeksr Mar 9, 2023

msadoon approved these changes Mar 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

add appTrackingTransparency to replaceCurrentEnvironment

033936d

scottkicks force-pushed the guard-segment-behind-consent branch from 06dfa83 to 033936d Compare March 9, 2023 20:45

Merge branch 'main' into guard-segment-behind-consent

fdbfe1e

msadoon reviewed Mar 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

Kickstarter.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

scottkicks added 2 commits March 13, 2023 08:21

update MockAppTrackingTransparency file naming and reference

8f2f73b

default consent management flag to true for TestCases

c6f9401

scottkicks force-pushed the guard-segment-behind-consent branch from d8c7b3f to c6f9401 Compare March 13, 2023 16:15

msadoon suggested changes Mar 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

add MockAppTrackingTransparency to kickstarter-ios target

beadd31

msadoon approved these changes Mar 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

scottkicks merged commit 3e59797 into main Mar 14, 2023

scottkicks deleted the guard-segment-behind-consent branch March 14, 2023 03:56

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[WEB-863] Guard Segment Events Behind AppTrackingTransparency #1799

[WEB-863] Guard Segment Events Behind AppTrackingTransparency #1799

scottkicks commented Mar 6, 2023 •

edited

codecov bot commented Mar 6, 2023 •

edited

scottkicks commented Mar 7, 2023

msadoon left a comment

msadoon Mar 9, 2023

msadoon Mar 9, 2023

msadoon Mar 9, 2023

msadoon Mar 9, 2023

scottkicks Mar 9, 2023

msadoon Mar 9, 2023

msadoon Mar 9, 2023

msadoon Mar 9, 2023

msadoon Mar 9, 2023

msadoon left a comment

msadoon commented Mar 9, 2023

msadoon left a comment

msadoon Mar 13, 2023

msadoon Mar 13, 2023

scottkicks Mar 13, 2023

msadoon Mar 13, 2023

scottkicks Mar 13, 2023 •

edited

msadoon Mar 13, 2023 •

edited

msadoon Mar 13, 2023

msadoon left a comment

		@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
		import Library

		struct MockAppTrackingTransparencyService: AppTrackingTransparencyType {

[WEB-863] Guard Segment Events Behind AppTrackingTransparency #1799

[WEB-863] Guard Segment Events Behind AppTrackingTransparency #1799

Conversation

scottkicks commented Mar 6, 2023 • edited

📲 What

🤔 Why

🛠 How

✅ Acceptance criteria

codecov bot commented Mar 6, 2023 • edited

Codecov Report

scottkicks commented Mar 7, 2023

msadoon left a 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

msadoon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

msadoon commented Mar 9, 2023

msadoon left a 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

scottkicks Mar 13, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

msadoon Mar 13, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

msadoon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

scottkicks commented Mar 6, 2023 •

edited

codecov bot commented Mar 6, 2023 •

edited

scottkicks Mar 13, 2023 •

edited

msadoon Mar 13, 2023 •

edited