fix: autolink on edit

[allroundexperts]

Details

This PR removes the autolink parsing rule when a message is being edited.

Fixed Issues

$ #9090

Tests

1. Open any chat
2. send safe.directory/link message
3. Edit the message to remove the link
4. Verify that the link is removed when the message is sent

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Review Checklist

Contributor (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 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 included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed 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 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 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 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
• 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
• 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.

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.

QA Steps

1. Open any chat
2. send safe.directory/link message
3. Edit the message to remove the link
4. Verify that the link is removed when the message is sent

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Screenshots

Web

Screen.Recording.2022-06-12.at.2.06.28.AM.mov

Mobile Web

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.13.-.2022-06-12.at.02.08.54.mp4

Desktop

Screen.Recording.2022-06-12.at.2.11.29.AM.mov

iOS

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.13.-.2022-06-12.at.02.13.06.mp4

Android

Screen.Recording.2022-06-12.at.2.15.07.AM.mov

[luacmartins]

@allroundexperts I'm a bit confused since this solution is quite different from what you originally proposed. Could you please clarify why that's the case?

[allroundexperts]

@allroundexperts I'm a bit confused since this solution is quite different from what you originally proposed. Could you please clarify why that's the case?

@luacmartins How is it different? At the time of my proposal, the replace function of the ExpensiMark class did not accept a second argument. At the time of creating the PR, it accepts a second argument called filterRules. I'm just making use of that.

[allroundexperts]

@allroundexperts I'm a bit confused since this solution is quite different from what you originally proposed. Could you please clarify why that's the case?

@luacmartins How is it different? At the time of my proposal, the replace function of the ExpensiMark class did not accept a second argument. At the time of creating the PR, it accepts a second argument called filterRules. I'm just making use of that.

@luacmartins This is the commit that was missing in my original proposal.
Expensify/expensify-common@8ed32ff

[luacmartins]

Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying! I'll probably be able to review this later this week. Meanwhile, @mananjadhav feel free to leave your comments.

[mananjadhav]

I'll be reviewing this by max tomorrow. Some system issues and I am just setting the workspace on another machine.

[mananjadhav]

Change looks fine. I'll test this today/tomorrow and update here.

[mananjadhav]

One change requested (restructure the expression). Rest of it tests well. Once you are done @allroundexperts ping me I'll test once again.

[mananjadhav]

Thanks for the change @allroundexperts. LGTM.

@luacmartins 🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[mananjadhav]

Thanks for the change @allroundexperts. LGTM.

@luacmartins 🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

@luacmartins Bump ^

[luacmartins]

Sorry for the delay, I was ooo for the past few days.

Changes test well. Left a small comment.

[luacmartins]

@allroundexperts Let's add a comment explaining why we are removing autolink as it's not obvious for someone not familiar with this issue.

[luacmartins]

@allroundexperts bumping this!

[allroundexperts]

@luacmartins Updated.

[luacmartins]

Comment looks good, but linting is failing now

[allroundexperts]

@luacmartins Fixed.

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by @luacmartins in version: 1.1.79-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by @roryabraham in version: 1.1.79-17 🚀

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

[cead22]

Just for visibility, after merging this PR we found that editing a message to include a link made it so the link wasn't rendered. I'm not sure if that was considered in-scope for this PR, but mentioning it so in the future we always try to think about the flows for creating and updating messages when changing the code to render them