[NoQA] Attempt to fix the checklists including already released PRs

[mountiny]

Details

I believe using ... is incorrect in this case, using the three dot operator, we also get the ancestor commits of the commits made in the range meaning that if some of the PRs has merge commits from the past before the left range, the git log includes them too and then as we parse the PRs from the git log output, we also include PRs which already been deployed.

Using the two dot operator however only includes the commits which are in between the tags, which is what we want in this case.

I have tested this manually on the latest tags and the output seems to be correct to me based on manually checking the repo.

I had to update the tests to include the cherry picked PRs in the output of the method. This is not the outcome we want eventually, as we would like to omit the Cherry picked prs from the list, but this is a bug we already had before and its better than what we have currently.

See the tests section for more details

Fixed Issues

$ #27123

Tests

I have tested the flow by simulating the methods locally, run

git log --pretty=format:'{"commit": "%H", "authorName": "%an", "subject": "%s"},' 1.3.76-6..1.3.77-0 > commit_history.txt

to get the commits between the 1.3.76-6 and 1.3.77-0.

This is the output: commit_history.txt

Then I have used this code which is used in the createOrGetStagingChecklist to parse this output in same way as we do when creating checklist officially

const replacer = (str) =>
    ({
        '\\': '\\\\',
        '\t': '\\t',
        '\n': '\\n',
        '\r': '\\r',
        '\f': '\\f',
        '"': '\\"',
    }[str]);

function getValidMergedPRs(commits) {
    const mergedPRs = new Set();
    commits.forEach(commit => {
        const author = commit.authorName;
        if (author === "OSBotify") {
            return;
        }

        const match = commit.subject.match(/Merge pull request #(\d+) from (?!Expensify\/.*-cherry-pick-staging)/);
        if (!Array.isArray(match) || match.length < 2) {
            return;
        }

        const pr = Number.parseInt(match[1], 10);
        if (mergedPRs.has(pr)) {
            // If a PR shows up in the log twice, that means that the PR was deployed in the previous checklist.
            // That also means that we don't want to include it in the current checklist, so we remove it now.
            mergedPRs.delete(pr);
            return;
        }

        mergedPRs.add(pr);
    });

    return Array.from(mergedPRs);
}

const stdout = `commit_history.text content`;

const sanitizedOutput = stdout.replace(/(?<="subject": ").*?(?="})/g, (subject) => subject.replace(/\\|\t|\n|\r|\f|"/g, replacer));

// Then remove newlines, format as JSON and convert to a proper JS object
const json = JSON.parse(`[${sanitizedOutput}]`.replace(/(\r\n|\n|\r)/gm, '').replace('},]', '}]'));

console.log(getValidMergedPRs(json));

The chain is:

• getPullRequestsMergedBetween

• getcommitHistoryAsJSON

• which calls the important git log here

• Sanitizes and parses the output here

• getValidMergePRs

• which matches for specific text of the merge commit message

  • This is the line which includes the incorrect PRs currently because out git log with three dot operator includes also ancestor commits which might have some older merge commits included

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A

• 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 / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • 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 verified the translation was requested/reviewed 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review 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
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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
  • If we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
  • 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(themeColors.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 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.
• 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 author checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

[melvin-bot]

@rushatgabhane 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]

[melvin-bot]

@situchan 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]

[mountiny]

This is because the PR 9 has been CPed here

[mountiny]

All the places the PR 3 has been added is because this PR was CPed to 1.0.1 here

[roryabraham]

@mountiny this change doesn't make sense to me ... if it was a flaw with the git logic, why would it only happen some of the time?

[mountiny]

I agree this is not ideal, I have been under assumption it was failing consistently as the bunch of checklists I saw then were aall wrong, but its flakey

This change however seems to fix it reliably and adds the CPs so I think that is bigger timesave for QA and deployer than to de-dupe the huge checklists potentially missing some pr which might get to prod not QAed. Then we could find a follow up fix to remove the CPs