-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
refactor: bring in new onboarding mechanics #2406
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
1bd72d1
to
591ff72
Compare
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
if ( | ||
!mounted || | ||
initializing.current || | ||
!store.authentication.didAuthenticate || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we still need just the !store.authentication.didAuthenticate
check here as per this PR:
openwallet-foundation/bifold-wallet#1477
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just curious, is there a reason you moved the early return after the checkForUpdates()
call? Might cause it to be called many times
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm on the fence with this one. You can't get to the Splash screen unless you complete either the PIN Create or PIN Enter which both complete authentication. So if you're seeing Splash you must have completed authentication. So, on 2nd though - this change may not have been needed.
EDIT: It was needed in the previous incarnation because Splash would have routed to the PIN mechanics. This is no longer the case.
Thoughts?
I moved it after because it should be cached at this point and didAuthenticate
is only required for the agent. I think it would be better to move the initialized check up if we don't want to repeat this fn call. Thoughts?
if (!agent) { | ||
initializing.current = false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we still need these two, no? Or else if it fails initialization the first, the retry button won't work
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed
navigation.dispatch( | ||
CommonActions.reset({ | ||
index: 0, | ||
routes: [{ name: Stacks.TabStack }], | ||
}) | ||
) | ||
} catch (e: unknown) { | ||
initializing.current = false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One small nit about placement of checkForUpdates()
call
@@ -24,77 +22,11 @@ import TipCarousel from '../components/TipCarousel' | |||
import useInitializeBCAgent from '../hooks/initialize-agent' | |||
import { BCState } from '../store' | |||
|
|||
import { TermsVersion } from './Terms' | |||
|
|||
const OnboardingVersion = 2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So OnboardingVersion
just isn't needed anymore? That's awesome
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, I can't think of any reason to keep it. We do use TermsVersion.
if ( | ||
!mounted || | ||
initializing.current || | ||
!store.authentication.didAuthenticate || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just curious, is there a reason you moved the early return after the checkForUpdates()
call? Might cause it to be called many times
release-fb.xcconfig
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
accidentally committed?
Signed-off-by: Jason C. Leach <[email protected]>
ddf41df
to
84aa285
Compare
Signed-off-by: al-rosenthal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: al-rosenthal <[email protected]>
|
This PR brings in the changes from openwallet-foundation/bifold-wallet#1464 as well as: