Skip to content

Update all usage of User(ONYXKEYS.USER), to use Account(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT) #60851

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

inimaga
Copy link
Contributor

@inimaga inimaga commented Apr 24, 2025

Explanation of Change

We have two models in the App that essentially represent the same thing: User and Account and this leads to a risk of duplicated information. We are thus in the process of deprecating User.ts and merge it into Account.ts to standardise and prevent duplicate information from being added to both models.

This change is step C of the entire process. i.e: Update all usage of User(ONYXKEYS.USER) in the frontend (App), to use Account(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT)

Fixed Issues

Part of #59277

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

  • 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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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 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)
    • 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.ts 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 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.
  • 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.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

@inimaga inimaga changed the title [WIP] Extend the Account model in the frontend (App), to include all fields in the User model [HOLD][No QA] Extend the Account model in the frontend (App), to include all fields in the User model Apr 25, 2025
@inimaga inimaga requested a review from MariaHCD April 25, 2025 10:15
@inimaga
Copy link
Contributor Author

inimaga commented Apr 25, 2025

Once this is reviewed and merged, the next step (D) will be App cleanup to remove all the User model in the App, including the hook introduced here.

@inimaga inimaga changed the title [HOLD][No QA] Extend the Account model in the frontend (App), to include all fields in the User model [No QA] Extend the Account model in the frontend (App), to include all fields in the User model Apr 25, 2025
@inimaga inimaga marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2025 10:19
@inimaga inimaga requested a review from a team as a code owner April 25, 2025 10:19
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team April 25, 2025 10:19
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 25, 2025

@ 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]

Copy link
Contributor

@MariaHCD MariaHCD left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure if this should be No QA - it touches a lot of flows related to the account/user, right?

Is there a way we can break this PR down into smaller ones so we can have QA test these flows?

@inimaga inimaga changed the title [No QA] Extend the Account model in the frontend (App), to include all fields in the User model Extend the Account model in the frontend (App), to include all fields in the User model Apr 25, 2025
@inimaga
Copy link
Contributor Author

inimaga commented Apr 25, 2025

@MariaHCD Fair point, it touches all the flows where user/account is invoked (All usage of User(ONYXKEYS.USER) has been replaced with Account(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT)). I initially added NO QA as it’s purely a cross-cutting refactor with no UI changes. But will nevertheless add a list of test cases so that potential issues / regressions can be surfaced.

Regarding breaking the PR down into several smaller ones, I'm wary of doing this. Since every screen in this change uniformly uses ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT, QA only needs to validate one consistent flow; splitting this into pieces would introduce mixed USER/ACCOUNT subscriptions and dramatically multiply the states they have to test. Keeping it as one atomic switch preserves a single end-to-end path, simplifies validation, and makes rollback trivial.

@inimaga inimaga changed the title Extend the Account model in the frontend (App), to include all fields in the User model Update all usage of User(ONYXKEYS.USER), to use Account(ONYXKEYS.ACCOUNT) Apr 25, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants