Fix the setupNode action failing on npx patch-package

[shubham1206agra]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #26101

Tests / QA Steps

1. First, try to commit something without any changes to .patch files. It should use cache and should not run npm ci
2. Then, try to change .patch files. It should run npm ci in this case.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
• Verify that step setupNode passes.

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]

@Julesssss 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]

[shubham1206agra]

@mountiny @adamgrzybowski Please review this whenever you have time and create an issue for completeness

[shubham1206agra]

The test build when npx patch-package fails
https://github.com/Expensify/App/actions/runs/5983634462/job/16233978272

[shubham1206agra]

The test build when trying to commit something without any changes to .patch files
https://github.com/Expensify/App/actions/runs/5983627755/job/16233964518

[shubham1206agra]

This build mimics try to change .patch files such that npx patch-package does not fail and should also use cache.
https://github.com/Expensify/App/actions/runs/5983578047/job/16233863820

Although this was due to a bug in earlier implementation

[mountiny]

Cc @adamgrzybowski @staszekscp could you check this out please

[mountiny]

@shubham1206agra thanks for the pr, can you please describe why it was failing and what you are doing to fix it? Add it to the details of the pr

[staszekscp]

Thanks for the catch and the PR! After giving it a thought, I think that in this case we could entirely remove patch and patchDesktop steps, and if the /patch folder changed we could execute npm ci anyway. This way we would keep the workflow simpler, and theoretically the result should be the same, since npm ci executes postinstall script with npx patch-package command. What do you think?

[shubham1206agra]

Thanks for the catch and the PR! After giving it a thought, I think that in this case we could entirely remove patch and patchDesktop steps, and if the /patch folder changed we could execute npm ci anyway. This way we would keep the workflow simpler, and theoretically the result should be the same, since npm ci executes postinstall script with npx patch-package command. What do you think?

I think time was the constraint here cause fresh installation takes time and someone wants to speed test the jest unit test, and if any patch file changes then the author has to wait extra time to confirm the results.

[shubham1206agra]

@shubham1206agra thanks for the pr, can you please describe why it was failing and what you are doing to fix it? Add it to the details of the pr

The original action has 2 problems

1. We are using the old cached node_modules which has used old patches and we know that whenever we try to overwrite the patches, the npx patch-package fails. So we are doing fresh installation if npx patch-package fails
2. The other problem can be seen in this job. In this job, the git diff fails with the following

fatal: ambiguous argument 'main': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:
'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'

Due to missing main branch in gh checkout. And it somehow sets CHANGES_IN_PATCH_FILES to true, which is running npx patch-package even if there are no changes in patch files.

[shubham1206agra]

@staszekscp Can you create an issue for completeness for this?

[shubham1206agra]

@staszekscp @adamgrzybowski friendly bump

[staszekscp]

Thanks for the catch and the PR! After giving it a thought, I think that in this case we could entirely remove patch and patchDesktop steps, and if the /patch folder changed we could execute npm ci anyway. This way we would keep the workflow simpler, and theoretically the result should be the same, since npm ci executes postinstall script with npx patch-package command. What do you think?

I think time was the constraint here cause fresh installation takes time and someone wants to speed test the jest unit test, and if any patch file changes then the author has to wait extra time to confirm the results.

I think that actually it would be safer to reinstall node_modules anyway. I've just checked, and modifying the patch without reinstalling node_modules will throw an error. Moreover, if a patch file is removed nothing will change in node_modules. That's why I would go for rerunning npm ci - we will be sure that we have the correct version applied, especially because npm ci removes the existing node_modules and does a clean install.

[shubham1206agra]

Thanks for the catch and the PR! After giving it a thought, I think that in this case we could entirely remove patch and patchDesktop steps, and if the /patch folder changed we could execute npm ci anyway. This way we would keep the workflow simpler, and theoretically the result should be the same, since npm ci executes postinstall script with npx patch-package command. What do you think?

I think time was the constraint here cause fresh installation takes time and someone wants to speed test the jest unit test, and if any patch file changes then the author has to wait extra time to confirm the results.

I think that actually it would be safer to reinstall node_modules anyway. I've just checked, and modifying the patch without reinstalling node_modules will throw an error. Moreover, if a patch file is removed nothing will change in node_modules. That's why I would go for rerunning npm ci - we will be sure that we have the correct version applied, especially because npm ci removes the existing node_modules and does a clean install.

Looks like removing the patch looks like a legitimate issue. Should I change the code now or wait for more thoughts?

[shubham1206agra]

In the meanwhile, can you please create an issue for the same?

[staszekscp]

Actually I am not a member of Expensify, so I'm not sure, should I be the person that creates the issue 😄 Maybe @mountiny could do that if that's necessary 😄 ?

[mountiny]

@shubham1206agra Can you please change the code now?

[mountiny]

Created an issue #26101

@roryabraham could you please help us with a review here 🙇

[mountiny]

@shubham1206agra Can you please comment on the linked issue

Can you also please create the PR we had to revert again? Then I could try to run the adhoc build using this workflow on that Pr with a patch to confirm the setupNode action will succeed

[shubham1206agra]

Can you also please create the PR we had to revert again? Then I could try to run the adhoc build using this workflow on that Pr with a patch to confirm the setupNode action will succeed

Already reopened #25989

[mountiny]

@shubham1206agra thanks!

Validate GH actions, github action is failing, can you please fix that

[shubham1206agra]

@shubham1206agra thanks!

Validate GH actions, github action is failing, can you please fix that

There is no diff by running the command. What should I do?

[roryabraham]

There is no diff by running the command. What should I do?

@shubham1206agra try this:

1. Merge main into this branch and run again
2. Run npm i before npm run gh-actions-build
3. Don't use a windows machine. If you're on windows you'll need to create a macOS or Linux VM and run it in there.

[roryabraham]

We did not have to fetch here before. Why did we add this?

[shubham1206agra]

The problem can be seen in this job. In this job, the git diff fails with the following

fatal: ambiguous argument 'main': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:
'git [...] -- [...]'

Due to missing main branch in gh checkout. And it somehow sets CHANGES_IN_PATCH_FILES to true, which is running npx patch-package even if there are no changes in patch files.

[shubham1206agra]

Validate gh actions gave out so much diff

[mountiny]

@roryabraham bump on the above if you could respond to @shubham1206agra please thank you!

[shubham1206agra]

@roryabraham Please review now

[roryabraham]

Nice, that's much simpler 🙂

[roryabraham]

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android / native
  • Android / Chrome
  • iOS / native
  • iOS / Safari
  • MacOS / Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS / Desktop
• 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 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
  • 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 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)
• 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 */
  • 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(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 reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Web

Mobile Web - Chrome

Mobile Web - Safari

Desktop

iOS

Android

[melvin-bot]

Congrats, that’s your 5th PR merged! 🎉 Do you know about the ContributorPlus role? It’s an opportunity to earn more in the Expensify Open Source community. Keep up the great work - thanks!

[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 https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.3.61-0 🚀

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

[mvtglobally]

@mountiny @roryabraham Can you please QA this internally

[mountiny]

All good, worked well

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 1.3.61-3 🚀

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