Skip to content
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

feat(ramp): add previously used tag #8680

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Feb 29, 2024
Merged

Conversation

wachunei
Copy link
Member

@wachunei wachunei commented Feb 22, 2024

Note

This PR is based on #8627

Description

This PR:

  • adds a tag to the quotes that were previously used.
  • moves the first occurrence of a previously used quote to the top of the list

Related issues

Fixes: https://consensyssoftware.atlassian.net/browse/ONRAMP-1338

Manual testing steps

  1. Go through the Ramps flow
  2. Previously used providers' quotes must be tagged and the top quotes must be previously used

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

After

Pre-merge author checklist

  • I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
  • I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved.
  • I've linked related issues
  • I've included manual testing steps
  • I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable
  • I’ve included tests if applicable
  • I’ve documented my code using JSDoc format if applicable
  • I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines). Not required for external contributors.
  • I’ve properly set the pull request status:
    • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
    • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

  • I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed).
  • I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.

@wachunei wachunei added needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) team-ramp issues related to Ramp features needs-ramp-qa Tickets that need feature QA on the ramps flows labels Feb 22, 2024
@wachunei wachunei requested a review from a team as a code owner February 22, 2024 19:09
Co-authored-by: Cal Leung <cleun007@gmail.com>
Cal-L
Cal-L previously approved these changes Feb 22, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@Cal-L Cal-L left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@wachunei wachunei removed the needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) label Feb 22, 2024
@gauthierpetetin gauthierpetetin added the needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) label Feb 22, 2024
@wachunei wachunei removed the needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) label Feb 28, 2024
Base automatically changed from feat/ramp-bottom-sheet-quotes to main February 28, 2024 17:36
@wachunei wachunei dismissed Cal-L’s stale review February 28, 2024 17:36

The base branch was changed.

@wachunei wachunei force-pushed the feat/ramp-previously-used-provider branch from 0791c71 to 43452fe Compare February 28, 2024 17:40
@wachunei wachunei requested a review from Cal-L February 28, 2024 17:42
@wachunei wachunei added the needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) label Feb 28, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes.

Copy link
Contributor

@Cal-L Cal-L left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@wachunei wachunei removed the needs-dev-review PR needs reviews from other engineers (in order to receive required approvals) label Feb 28, 2024
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Feb 28, 2024

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 41.60%. Comparing base (224f737) to head (7c7638e).

Files Patch % Lines
app/components/UI/Ramp/Views/Quotes/Quotes.tsx 77.77% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
app/components/UI/Ramp/components/Quote/Quote.tsx 0.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8680   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   41.60%   41.60%           
=======================================
  Files        1267     1267           
  Lines       30722    30729    +7     
  Branches     3062     3063    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        12781    12786    +5     
- Misses      17171    17172    +1     
- Partials      770      771    +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@bkirb
Copy link
Contributor

bkirb commented Feb 29, 2024

Screenshot 2024-02-28 at 8 44 17 PM @wachunei LGTM I finished verifying this change ✅

@wachunei wachunei added ramp-qa-passed and removed needs-ramp-qa Tickets that need feature QA on the ramps flows labels Feb 29, 2024
@wachunei wachunei merged commit 0f45aeb into main Feb 29, 2024
33 checks passed
@wachunei wachunei deleted the feat/ramp-previously-used-provider branch February 29, 2024 13:37
@metamaskbot metamaskbot added the release-7.18.0 Issue or pull request that will be included in release 7.18.0 label Feb 29, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 29, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
ramp-qa-passed release-7.18.0 Issue or pull request that will be included in release 7.18.0 team-ramp issues related to Ramp features
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants