[lib][web][native] Handle idnentity login in reducers
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by inka on Mar 27 2024, 4:12 AM.

Details

Reviewers

michal
kamil
ginsu

Commits

rCOMM362fadd02e70: [lib][web][native] Handle idnentity login in reducers

Summary

issues: ENG-6598 and ENG-6639

We want to wipe the state on identity login. More context in ENG-6424
We also need to save the CSAT (some further discussion in ENG-7428)
Same as in D10860 we want to set the calendar query in the reducer to use the current dates

Test Plan

Tested that the state is wiped on normal login. Tested that the state is not wiped on recovery login

Diff Detail

Repository

rCOMM Comm

Branch

inka/local_minimal_testing_multiple_keyservers

Lint

No Lint Coverage

Unit

No Test Coverage

Event Timeline

inka created this revision.Mar 27 2024, 4:12 AM

Herald added subscribers: tomek, ashoat. · View Herald TranscriptMar 27 2024, 4:12 AM

inka added a parent revision: D11393: [lib] Add preRequestUserState to identity login.Mar 27 2024, 4:12 AM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B27696: Diff 38353.Mar 27 2024, 4:27 AM

inka requested review of this revision.Mar 27 2024, 4:27 AM

inka added a child revision: D11395: [lib][native] Only reduce CSAT on setAccessTokenActionType.Mar 27 2024, 4:58 AM

ashoat added inline comments.Mar 27 2024, 5:25 AM

lib/reducers/services-access-token-reducer.js
29–32	Strange to see this added here and then removed in a later diff in the stack

inka added inline comments.Mar 27 2024, 8:34 AM

lib/reducers/services-access-token-reducer.js
29–32	I felt like this would make reviewing easier, as those two diffs have quite different purposes. This diff implements logic for login, following what we already have in the code for registration. This is code we know works, we are just implementing it for an action that was recently added. The next diff refactors this logic. The refactor is due to us having rethought some general app design, and is more likely to be questioned and possibly changed drastically or abandoned. So I wanted to have this first diff that can be safely landed before we agree on the second diff. This is also partially because the second diff was not in the initial scope of my goal.