Rerequesting review since made some changes with the ref logic by switching from useCallback hook => useRef hook

address tomek's comments and fixed issue with the value of emojiKeyboardNode

address tomeks comments

rebase before landing

D6830 makes this diff no longer relevant

Can't see the color change visually, but code looks good

fix ref dependency error

It is a good practice to be more explicit in the test plan. Saying that there are no regression doesn't allow the reviewer to verify if all the important cases were covered.

address comments

If there is such a strong reason, you should absolutely expect your reviewer will call you out, and you should preemptively annotate and explain why are you doing this.

Looks good

fix import statements

address tomeks comments

The video from the test plan doesn't load for me - it is displayed but the spinner is present for a couple of minutes now. Could you describe your test plan in words? It also might be a good idea to have shorter and smaller (with only the relevant portion of the screen) videos.

address tomeks comments

Looks good, also closely watched @ashoat write this IRL

Looks good, I also closely watched @ashoat write this IRL

Abandoning due to improved solution by @ashoat in D6657 and D6658

Did some more tests with the tooltips and found some regressions that should be addressed:

We really shouldn't have added application-specific code here... it violates separation of concerns. This should've gone on the TooltipSpec

rebase before landing

rebase before landing

The approach is ok, but it isn't a good practice to copy the code. For all the messages we use (almost?) the same logic - can we reuse it?

An approach looks better, but we're duplicating a lot of logic. We should reuse it by e.g. introducing functions with common parts. Accepting, to not block the goal, but please improve this later.

rebase before landing

rebase before landing

address tomek's comments

address tomek's feedback

rebase for changes needed in D6455

Adding @ashoat as blocking since these are copy changes

rebase for changes needed in D6455

In D6454#194196, @tomek wrote:

The approach is ok, but it isn't a good practice to copy the code. For all the messages we use (almost?) the same logic - can we reuse it?

In D6455#193353, @tomek wrote:

In D6455#193305, @ginsu wrote:

When we have a couple of reactions, it is not clear to which of these the number corresponds.

@tomek could you elaborate on what you mean by the number these correspond to?

Sure! I was talking about the number from the video

The 2 probably corresponds to the 4th emoji, but I think we should make it more obvious, by e.g. increasing the padding between emoji-number pairs, changing the background, or something else. It doesn't need to be addressed here - the main issue here is always rendering the picker.

rebase

rebase

remove sendReaction function from reaction-message-utils

remove unnecessary logs