fix: Update second Allow location access modal on web

[truph01]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #50601
PROPOSAL: #50601 (comment)

Tests

Test 1: For [Chrome]

1. Clear all the ND's permission in chrome://settings/content/location if has.
2. FAB > Submit expense > Scan > Upload receipt.
3. In confirmation page, click "Submit expense". Verify the below modal is displayed:

4. Choose "Continue". Verify the below modal is displayed:

5. Choose "Block".

6. FAB > Submit expense > Scan > Upload receipt.

7. In confirmation page, click "Submit expense". Verify the below modal is displayed:

8. Choose "Got it". Verify the expense is submitted.

Test 2: For Android/IOS app

1. FAB > Submit expense > Scan > Upload receipt.
2. In confirmation page, click "Submit expense". Verify the below modal is displayed:

3. Choose "Continue". Verify the below modal is displayed:

4. Choose "Don't Allow".

5. FAB > Submit expense > Scan > Upload receipt.

6. In confirmation page, click "Submit expense". Verify the below modal is displayed:

7. Choose "Settings". Verify app redirect to setting screen.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

• 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: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb 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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • 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 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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

output.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-10-30.at.08.47.54.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-10-30.at.08.41.50.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-10-30.at.09.14.04.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

output.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-10-30.at.09.11.28.mov

[melvin-bot]

@alitoshmatov 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]

[alitoshmatov]

@truph01 After not allowing location access the modal is not appearing in second submit. Maybe it is because I am in newer version of chrome where it offer different options for choosing allowing access

Screen.Recording.2024-11-03.at.9.37.05.PM.mov

[truph01]

@alitoshmatov Ah, I see it. Do you think it's actually related to our PR, given that we're focusing on updating the modal (title, subtitle, buttons) rather than modifying the logic for when it should be displayed?

[alitoshmatov]

@alitoshmatov Ah, I see it. Do you think it's actually related to our PR, given that we're focusing on updating the modal (title, subtitle, buttons) rather than modifying the logic for when it should be displayed?

I guess not, but would be great if we considered this possibility as well.

[alitoshmatov]

@truph01 I am also noticing that in your ios safari recording, the modal is shown second time you submit a scan but clicking continue does not show native location permission modal. In my simulator after I reject location first time, no modal is shown in second scan request

permission-safari.mp4

[alitoshmatov]

In ios also the modal is shown only in first scan request. After rejecting native permission modal first time submitting second invoice request is not triggering modal

permission-ios.mp4

[alitoshmatov]

That is three places – Ios native, Ios safari, Mac chrome which shows only first modal not the second modal with "Got it" button or "Settings" button.

If this is accepted behavior we should reconsider testing steps to prevent further confusion

[truph01]

@alitoshmatov We are encountering different behavior in Chrome, maybe because of the Chrome version (Here is from @alitoshmatov and the one in the screen recording section is from my side). So, I wonder how I can write the test steps properly in Chrome?

cc @Julesssss

[Julesssss]

@alitoshmatov Ah, I see it. Do you think it's actually related to our PR, given that we're focusing on updating the modal (title, subtitle, buttons) rather than modifying the logic for when it should be displayed?

In ios also the modal is shown only in first scan request. After rejecting native permission modal first time submitting second invoice request is not triggering modal

I think that sounds like our logic that only prompts the user for location once every 7 days? (each client tracks this seprerately)

I agree we need to have well defined test steps. After retesting with the 7 day throttle disabled lets see if our experiences match. To help with this I branched from these changes HERE with that logic removed, and test builds are currently being built...

4. Choose "Don't Allow".

Also, this screenshot is incorrect for mobile, can you change it to the native permission modal so that QA aren't confused.