location bias feature implementation by rojiphil · Pull Request #33334 · Expensify/App

rojiphil · 2023-12-20T09:46:24Z

@parasharrajat @thienlnam

Details

This PR implements the feature of location bias in the following way:

When no waypoints are set and the user’s current location is unavailable, the App behaves as it happened before the fix.
When no waypoints are set but the user’s current location is available, set a rectangular boundary around the current location coordinates (with a width/height of 1 degree).
When only one waypoint is set, ignore the user’s current location and set a rectangular boundary around the only available waypoint coordinates (with a width/height of 1 degree)
When two or more waypoints are set, calculate the min and max values of the latitude/longitude from the available waypoints. Then, enlarge the arrived rectangular boundary by 1 degree.
The rectangular area in the above cases reflects the extreme north, south, west, and east coordinates.

Fixed Issues

$ #32068
PROPOSAL: #32068 (comment)

Tests

Precondition:
Enable Location Access by giving all necessary permissions

Steps:

Click on Global FAB —> Request Money
Select Distance tab.
Click on the Start waypoint so that the Address Search view is shown.
In the Address text input, enter a search text.

Expected Result 1: The search results should be such that it is nearer to the user’s current location

Enter a search text and select a Start waypoint that is far from the current user’s location(maybe in another city)
Click on the Finish waypoint so that the Address Search view is shown.
In the Address text input, enter a search text.

Expected Result 2: The search results should be nearer to the Start waypoint

Select a Finish waypoint from the available options so that both Start and Finish waypoints are filled.
Click on the Add stop button so that the Address Search view is shown.
In the Address text input, enter a search text.

Expected Result 3: The search results should be nearer to the Start and Finish waypoints

Test Notes:

The search results can be compared with the search results in the current staging or production version to notice the impact of location bias implementation.

Development Testing

On the Android Emulator, user’s location I was not able to set the . So, tests were conducted using the default user location.
On the Desktop, the user’s location could not be set. So, tests were done with the default location.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Above tests cannot be used as internet connection is required.

QA Steps

Same as the Steps for Tests Section.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Web - Safari

32068-web-safari-1.mp4

Mobile Web - Safari

32068-mweb-safari-1.mp4

Desktop

32068-desktop-1.mp4

iOS

32068-ios-native-1.mp4

Android

32068-android-native-1.mp4

Mobile Web - Chrome

32068-mweb-chrome-1.mp4

melvin-bot · 2023-12-20T09:46:28Z

Hey! I see that you made changes to our Form component. Make sure to update the docs in FORMS.md accordingly. Cheers!

melvin-bot · 2023-12-20T10:15:35Z

@parasharrajat 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]

rojiphil · 2023-12-20T10:15:56Z

@parasharrajat
PR is ready for review
Over to you

rojiphil · 2023-12-21T04:03:51Z

+        if (filledWaypointCount === 0 && _.isEmpty(userLocation)) {
+            return null;
+        }
+


@parasharrajat
If there are no waypoints and also user's current location cannot be determined, do you think we should consider the default coordinates in the app i.e. [-122.4021, 37.7911] as set here?
or returning null as it is done currently is good enough?

I think it will be better to skip locationBias in that case.

parasharrajat · 2023-12-21T09:30:27Z

            language: preferredLocale,
            types: resultTypes,
            components: isLimitedToUSA ? 'country:us' : undefined,
+            locationbias: locationBias || 'ipbias',


I don't think we should pass ipbias here. Let this be controlled by the caller. Can you please explain this?

I get your point. Instead of passing ipbias, it may be better to let the default behavior occur by not passing the locationbias property if we do not have one. We can do something like this below.
Let me know what you think on this.

...(locationBias && {locationbias: locationBias}),

parasharrajat · 2023-12-21T09:41:29Z

+        if (filledWaypointCount === 0 && _.isEmpty(userLocation)) {
+            return null;
+        }
+


I think it will be better to skip locationBias in that case.

parasharrajat · 2023-12-21T09:46:05Z

    const {isOffline} = useNetwork();
    const textInput = useRef(null);
    const parsedWaypointIndex = parseInt(pageIndex, 10);
+    const directionCoordinates = lodashGet(transaction, 'routes.route0.geometry.coordinates', []);


What is this? I don't see this defined in transactionPropTypes

Yes. I also notice that routes are not there in transactionPropTypes. But, these are route coordinates that get populated in transaction via getRouteForDraft when the start and finish valid waypoints are filled.

Co-authored-by: Rajat <parasharrajat@users.noreply.github.com>

parasharrajat · 2023-12-21T17:06:53Z

+        if (_.size(directionCoordinates) > 0) {
+            longitudes.push(..._.map(directionCoordinates, (coordinate) => coordinate[0]));
+            latitudes.push(..._.map(directionCoordinates, (coordinate) => coordinate[1]));
+        }


I don't think we should worry about this. This is just too specific. Also, it depends on the internal state which can change. What is the benefit of adding these?

Since the route between waypoints could have detours, I think considering direction coordinates gives us a more realistic boundary. While I too think this to be too specific, we do consider direction coordinates in arriving at the map bounds as seen here. I think the user will naturally expect to find finer address locations within the visual map bounds. So, I think we may want to keep this. But, if you think this is way too specific, we can remove this too. Let me know what you think.

I will leave this for the internal Engineer to decide.

@thienlnam
We can either ignore direction coordinates or consider them to arrive at the rectangular boundary for location bias. Please help us decide on this.

I don't think we need to worry about this right now - let's start with the most straightforward implementation first and then see if there's an issue

@rojiphil Please let me know when changed.

@parasharrajat
I have committed the changes.

parasharrajat

Will test it shortly...

Co-authored-by: Rajat <parasharrajat@users.noreply.github.com>

rojiphil · 2023-12-22T18:17:53Z

@parasharrajat
I have updated the description in the PR author checklist to reflect the recently agreed changes.
Also, I have tested it across all platforms, and works well.
Looking forward to your test results.

parasharrajat · 2023-12-26T14:53:46Z

I was testing this and I noticed that it is not giving the best results as per my expectations.

For example in the below video when I typed HDFC bank, I expected HDFC bank sector 70 to show up in the list As it is closest to the previous two selected points.

Screen.Recording.2023-12-26.at.9.00.26.PM.mov

rojiphil · 2023-12-26T19:17:19Z

I was testing this and I noticed that it is not giving the best results as per my expectations.

For example in the below video when I typed HDFC bank, I expected HDFC bank sector 70 to show up in the list As it is closest to the previous two selected points.

@parasharrajat

Thanks for the tests. I also tried this on similar lines. Since HDFC Bank is a very popular bank with many locations within the rectangular bounds that we have set, I am not sure how Google determines which ones to display from the available locations within the rectangular bounds. Maybe there could be additional parameters that can be set for Google search to be even more precise. I am not sure of any approach currently. Do you have ideas on this to make it more precise?

But, given that we wanted to take a straightforward approach initially, doesn’t our solution meet the intended purpose of showing locations closer to the location than faraway absurd search results?
I gave numbers in the search as in the OP and it showed up search results near the locations we are in.
Here is a test video demonstrating this.

32068-test-result-1.mp4

parasharrajat · 2023-12-27T14:12:04Z

I can only think of https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/places/web-service/search-nearby#rankby.

But, given that we wanted to take a straightforward approach initially, doesn’t our solution meet the intended purpose of showing locations closer to the location than faraway absurd search results?

Kind of agree. Can you please quickly check the suggested option and let me know the results?

rojiphil · 2023-12-27T16:31:52Z

I can only think of https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/places/web-service/search-nearby#rankby.

@parasharrajat
I just did a quick check.
rankby is used in Nearby Search whereas we have used locationbias in Find Place.
As shown in the attached screenshot from here, Nearby Search does not support Ambiguous text but is keyword based search. And, in our use case, ambiguous text search makes more sense as User can enter address as mentioned in OP.
So, I think our current implementation of locationbias is better than rankby.

parasharrajat · 2023-12-28T11:13:03Z

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

Screen.Recording.2023-12-28.at.4.41.48.PM.mov

🔲 iOS / Safari

Screen.Recording.2023-12-28.at.4.36.41.PM.mov

🔲 MacOS / Desktop

Screen.Recording.2023-12-28.at.4.34.25.PM.mov

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-12-28.at.4.06.00.PM.mov

🔲 Android / Chrome

Screen.Recording.2023-12-28.at.4.40.18.PM.mov

🔲 Android / native

Screen.Recording.2023-12-28.at.4.38.09.PM.mov

parasharrajat

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: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb 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(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 form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label 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.
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.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

parasharrajat · 2024-01-02T06:51:30Z

Bump @thienlnam

thienlnam

Great - thank you both for the work here!

OSBotify · 2024-01-02T20:08:30Z

✋ 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 · 2024-01-02T23:51:37Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 1.4.21-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-01-04T18:54:13Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.4.21-4 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-01-04T19:19:03Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.4.21-4 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-01-04T20:16:30Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.4.21-4 🚀

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

rojiphil added 4 commits December 19, 2023 13:09

draft version with logs

c4d5eae

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into 32068-feature-locationbias

4f3231f

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into 32068-feature-locationbias

46b608e

lint fixes

bb6ccfc

rojiphil marked this pull request as ready for review December 20, 2023 10:15

rojiphil requested a review from a team as a code owner December 20, 2023 10:15

melvin-bot Bot requested review from parasharrajat and removed request for a team December 20, 2023 10:15

rojiphil mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2023

[HOLD for payment 2024-01-11] [$500] New Feature request: Add LocationBias to distance requests #32068

Closed

rojiphil commented Dec 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

parasharrajat suggested changes Dec 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

use undefined as default for userLocation

00ace7f

Co-authored-by: Rajat <parasharrajat@users.noreply.github.com>

parasharrajat reviewed Dec 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

rojiphil added 2 commits December 22, 2023 08:07

optimize usage of locationbias in query

af1259f

removed direction coordinates

dbfda57

parasharrajat suggested changes Dec 22, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/components/AddressSearch/index.js Outdated

update to comment text

2995908

Co-authored-by: Rajat <parasharrajat@users.noreply.github.com>

parasharrajat approved these changes Dec 28, 2023

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from thienlnam December 28, 2023 11:13

thienlnam approved these changes Jan 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

thienlnam merged commit b8b675d into Expensify:main Jan 2, 2024

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jan 2, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-01-02 #33855

Closed

58 tasks

rojiphil deleted the 32068-feature-locationbias branch January 3, 2024 04:14

This was referenced Jan 3, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-01-11] Distance - Location search results in distance request editor are not location-biased #33877

Closed

Distance - Header and Amount show TBD when editing distance without saving it #33878

Closed

allroundexperts mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2024

Distance - Countries, which begin with entered letter are displayed next to suggested places #33941

Closed

6 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

rojiphil commented Dec 20, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Dec 20, 2023

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Dec 20, 2023

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Dec 20, 2023

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

parasharrajat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Dec 22, 2023

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Dec 26, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Dec 26, 2023

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Dec 27, 2023

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Dec 27, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Dec 28, 2023

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

🔲 iOS / Safari

🔲 MacOS / Desktop

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

🔲 Android / Chrome

🔲 Android / native

Uh oh!

parasharrajat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Jan 2, 2024

Uh oh!

thienlnam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rojiphil commented Dec 20, 2023 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Dec 26, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rojiphil commented Dec 27, 2023 •

edited

Loading