Skip to content

feat: Checkout Components#331

Open
OnurVar wants to merge 42 commits into
masterfrom
ov/feat/components
Open

feat: Checkout Components#331
OnurVar wants to merge 42 commits into
masterfrom
ov/feat/components

Conversation

@OnurVar

@OnurVar OnurVar commented Mar 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@OnurVar OnurVar self-assigned this Mar 19, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Mar 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Warnings
⚠️ This PR doesn't seem to contain any updated Unit Test for Swift 🤔. Please consider double checking it 🙏
Messages
📖 ✅ No SwiftLint violations found.

Generated by 🚫 Danger Swift against 50f61b8

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Mar 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Messages
📖 ✅ No detekt violations found.

Generated by 🚫 Danger Kotlin against 50f61b8

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Mar 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Appetize iOS link: https://appetize.io/app/v6fw3aqdz4j4u2u3v5o2czx7xi

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Appetize Android link: https://appetize.io/app/jwor3dpopkjftxfgtf4gtoveta

@OnurVar OnurVar added the wip label Mar 19, 2026
@OnurVar OnurVar force-pushed the ov/feat/components branch 2 times, most recently from f97972f to d47d336 Compare April 3, 2026 12:22
@OnurVar OnurVar force-pushed the ov/feat/components branch 2 times, most recently from f69fdb6 to 09ef1a0 Compare April 23, 2026 23:28
@OnurVar OnurVar force-pushed the ov/feat/components branch from 441f66f to e897c92 Compare May 5, 2026 08:23
@OnurVar OnurVar force-pushed the ov/feat/components branch from b9931e4 to 4b2ae71 Compare June 10, 2026 23:18
@OnurVar OnurVar marked this pull request as ready for review June 26, 2026 23:59
@OnurVar OnurVar requested a review from a team as a code owner June 26, 2026 23:59

@unblocked unblocked Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

1 issue found.

About Unblocked

Unblocked has been set up to automatically review your team's pull requests to identify genuine bugs and issues.

📖 Documentation — Learn more in our docs.

💬 Ask questions — Mention @unblocked to request a review or summary, or ask follow-up questions.

👍 Give feedback — React to comments with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve.

⚙️ Customize — Adjust settings in your preferences.

Comment thread src/Components/internal/checkout-sheet/CheckoutSheet.tsx Outdated
OnurVar added 3 commits June 27, 2026 03:25
Re-resolved after the podspec bump. Pulls the new 3.0 subpods
(PrimerNetworking, PrimerResources, PrimerUI) from CocoaPods; no :path overrides.
This repo doesn't transform node_modules, so real react-native is raw ESM.
Component tests hand-mocked react-native per file; once the component graph
got deep (post-#381 rename) those mocks leaked on the Linux CI runner — the
real, untransformed react-native loaded and Node threw "Cannot use import
statement outside a module" (non-deterministically, never locally).

Add one auto-applied mock at __mocks__/react-native.js (jest uses manual
mocks adjacent to node_modules for every test) so real react-native is never
loaded, and drop the bespoke leak-prone factories (cardInputGuard used the
buggy virtual:true) from the two suites that render deep component trees.
Swipe-to-dismiss fired onDismiss before onRequestDismiss (reversed vs every
other dismiss path) and self-hid the sheet even when no onRequestDismiss was
provided, desyncing it from the parent's visible prop (hidden but visible=true,
unable to reopen until toggled off/on).

Fire onRequestDismiss first, then onDismiss; and spring back instead of
dismissing when onRequestDismiss is absent — matching handleBackdropPress.
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Warnings
⚠️ Pull Request size seems relatively large. If this Pull Request contains multiple changes, please split each into separate PRs for a faster, easier review.
Messages
📖 ✅ No ESLint violations found.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 50f61b8

@sonarqubecloud

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
41.3% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)
C Reliability Rating on New Code (required ≥ A)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Catch issues before they fail your Quality Gate with our IDE extension SonarQube for IDE

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants