use dnd-kit for DraggableList

[davidgelhar]

Explanation of Change

This change uses a new library (dnd-kit) to implement the DraggableList component. (The previous library is being deprecated, and lacks an option to contstrain how elements can be dragged).

With dnd-kit, the restrictToVerticalAxis and restrictToParentElement modifiers are used to ensure that elements can be dragged vertically only, and cannot be dragged outside the boundaries of the list of waypoint addresses.

Request to add a new library was approved here: #59231

Fixed Issues

$ #57312
PROPOSAL: #57312 (comment)

Tests

1. Press the FAB, "Create expense", choose "DIstance"
2. Press "Start" and enter an address. Repeat until you have at least 3 addresses.
3. Drag the addresses around to change the order
4. Verify that the order in the list changes when you drag an address to a new location
5. Verify that the map redraws showing the new order
6. Verify that you can drag only vertically, not side-to-side
7. Verify that the address cannot be dragged up/down beyond the boundaries of the list

Offline tests

1. While online, create a Distance expense with at least 3 addresses
2. Force offline
3. Create a new Distance expense, using the addresses remembered from step 1
4. Verify addresses can be dragged to reorder, even the though the map is "pending"

QA Steps

Same as tests

• Verify that the order in the list changes when you drag an address to a new location
• Verify that the map redraws showing the new order
• Verify that you can drag only vertically, not side-to-side
• Verify that the address cannot be dragged up/down beyond the boundaries of the list

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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• 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

drag.android.native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

drag.android.mweb.mp4

iOS: Native

drag.ios.native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

drag.ios.mweb.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

drag.safari.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

drag.desktop.mp4

[github-actions]

⚠️ This PR is possibly changing native code and/or updating libraries, it may cause problems with HybridApp. Please check if any patch updates are required in the HybridApp repo and run an AdHoc build to verify that HybridApp will not break. Ask Contributor Plus for help if you are not sure how to handle this. ⚠️

[github-actions]

⚠️ This PR is possibly changing native code and/or updating libraries, it may cause problems with HybridApp. Please check if any patch updates are required in the HybridApp repo and run an AdHoc build to verify that HybridApp will not break. Ask Contributor Plus for help if you are not sure how to handle this. ⚠️

[melvin-bot]

@hoangzinh 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]

[hoangzinh]

MOBILE-EXPENSIFY: https://github.com/Expensify/Mobile-Expensify/pull/59723

What is that link @davidgelhar? I can't access it

[hoangzinh]

@davidgelhar should we also remove react-beautiful-dnd in this PR?

[hoangzinh]

Except for the console.log, other verification checkboxes, we can convert it into verification steps.

[davidgelhar]

MOBILE-EXPENSIFY: https://github.com/Expensify/Mobile-Expensify/pull/59723

What is that link @davidgelhar? I can't access it

I can't access it either. I didn't add it myself but I think is related to the messages about doing an ad-hoc build of Hybrid App because of library changes

[davidgelhar]

@davidgelhar should we also remove react-beautiful-dnd in this PR?

Seems like a good idea. I will update the PR

[hoangzinh]

MOBILE-EXPENSIFY: https://github.com/Expensify/Mobile-Expensify/pull/59723

What is that link @davidgelhar? I can't access it

I can't access it either. I didn't add it myself but I think is related to the messages about doing an ad-hoc build of Hybrid App because of library changes

From audit logs, it seems added by yourself.

[davidgelhar]

@hoangzinh I have removed that link- it was not valid anyway

[hoangzinh]

Thank you @davidgelhar. Ping me again when the PR is ready for next review

[davidgelhar]

@hoangzinh pushed an update to PR removing react-beautiful-dnd; please review

[hoangzinh]

Thank you @davidgelhar. I will review the PR today

[hoangzinh]

@davidgelhar can you update the testing steps please #59723 (comment)?

[davidgelhar]

@davidgelhar can you update the testing steps please #59723 (comment)?

The verification checkboxes have been moved into the "QA Steps" section - is that what you were suggesting?

[hoangzinh]

@davidgelhar can you update the testing steps please #59723 (comment)?

The verification checkboxes have been moved into the "QA Steps" section - is that what you were suggesting?

Ah nope @davidgelhar , it should be

1. Press the FAB, "Create expense", choose "DIstance"
2. Press "Start" and enter an address. Repeat until you have at least 3 addresses.
3. Drag the addresses around to change the order
4. Verify that the order in the list changes when you drag an address to a new location
5. Verify that the map redraws showing the new order
6. Verify that you can drag only vertically, not side-to-side
7. Verify that the address cannot be dragged up/down beyond the boundaries of the list

[hoangzinh]

Doc is here https://github.com/Expensify/react-native-onyx?tab=readme-ov-file#useonyxs-canbemissing-option

[hoangzinh]

I got this alert when access create expense page

it seems we can set it canBeMissing: true because

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistance.tsx

Lines 203 to 205 in fd4b9ad

	// Only load the recent waypoints if they have been read from Onyx as undefined
	// If the account doesn't have recent waypoints they will be returned as an empty array
	openDraftDistanceExpense();

[hoangzinh]

LGTM

[dangrous]

Awesome! Code's a lot cleaner now, too.

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/dangrous in version: 9.1.32-0 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

[nlemma]

@davidgelhar This PR is failing because of issue #60733
The issue is reproducible in iOS.

Bug6810950_1745436012623.ScreenRecording_04-24-2025_03-16-23_1.mp4

[davidgelhar]

I have been able to reproduce the issue #60733 reported in QA: on iOS dragging the points often does not work at all (intermittent but frequent failure).

Evidently the solution of using a NestableDraggableFlatList inside a NestableScrollContainer that works on Android does not (reliably) work on iOS. (This may explain why there were separate android/ios versions of this component).

At this point, I think it might be best to revert to the previous behavior for iOS only (restore index.ios.tsx)
@hoangzinh @dangrous thoughts?

[hoangzinh]

I agree, then we can find a better solution for IOS later. What do you think @dangrous?

[dangrous]

hm yeah I think that makes sense, we can revert for iOS and figure out an update for that as a follow up.

[davidgelhar]

@dangrous what's the best way to do that? New pull request?

[hoangzinh]

Yeah, to fix the deploy blocker first.

[davidgelhar]

@hoangzinh @dangrous created #60850 to revert the change for iOS

[dangrous]

requesting a retest of this, now that revert is on staging
https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C9YU7BX5M/p1745596980922699

[dangrous]

This is as expected now not fixing the original issue on iOS but seems to be good on other platforms, so can move forward as QA'd

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/thienlnam in version: 9.1.32-8 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅