[PM-13755] Decouple Invite and Edit User Flows

[JimmyVo16]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-13755

📔 Objective

Refactor the code to separate the invite and edit user flows, improving readability by reducing conditional complexity and decoupling responsibilities.

For members.component.ts

1. Create an overload invite method and move all the invite user flow from edit method into it.

For member-dialog.component.ts

1. Refactor the submit method into smaller methods with more focused responsibilities: handleEditUser, handleInviteUsers, and getUserView.
2. Remove the toast in the submit method as form validation prevents this code from being executed. Discussion

No new visible behavior was introduced.

📸 Screenshots

Tested by going through invite, edit, revoke, and remove

Regression.testing.webm

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – d02b872a-71d7-4a94-8ca2-7ba270df0807

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 33.72093% with 57 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 34.97%. Comparing base (c6a3055) to head (56db3b4).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...omponents/member-dialog/member-dialog.component.ts	0.00%	34 Missing ⚠️
...console/organizations/members/members.component.ts	0.00%	20 Missing ⚠️
...log/validators/org-seat-limit-reached.validator.ts	88.23%	2 Missing ⚠️
...er-access-report/member-access-report.component.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #12277      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   34.96%   34.97%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2976     2977       +1     
  Lines       90585    90618      +33     
  Branches    16980    16974       -6     
==========================================
+ Hits        31671    31694      +23     
- Misses      56457    56467      +10     
  Partials     2457     2457              

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

[eliykat]

All makes sense to me! Minor feedback only.

Also note your Jira ticket link is wrong.

[JimmyVo16]

Sanity test for email validator
test email input validator.webm

[eliykat]

Validators should be attached when the form is first initialized, so that the user gets immediate feedback when filling it out. You should delete setInputEmailCountValidator and attach your validator in the existing setFormValidators method.

[JimmyVo16]

Testing
Code review testing 2.webm

[eliykat]

You also have some failures caused by strict typechecking: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/actions/runs/12283466303/job/34277004841

It's a bit premature to start solving these, I suggest adding the magic comment to the top of the offending files:

// FIXME: Update this file to be type safe and remove this and next line
// @ts-strict-ignore

[JimmyVo16]

You also have some failures caused by strict typechecking: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/actions/runs/12283466303/job/34277004841

It's a bit premature to start solving these, I suggest adding the magic comment to the top of the offending files:

// FIXME: Update this file to be type safe and remove this and next line
// @ts-strict-ignore

I was looking at this yesterday. The only thing that I'm confused about is that this isn't my change. I guess the type check goes through the whole code repo or code paths?

Either way, I'm going to do what you suggested.

[JimmyVo16]

Testing Code review 3
Testing 3.webm

Edit: This testing includes both validators; inputEmailValidator and orgSeatLimitReachedValidator.

[eliykat]

I was looking at this yesterday. The only thing that I'm confused about is that this isn't my change. I guess the type check goes through the whole code repo or code paths?

You're right - my bad. main was broken, so when you updated your branch you pulled in the failures. main is now fixed so it resolved itself when you last updated your branch. :)

This lgtm!

[JimmyVo16]

I will do some manual testing after the pipeline succeeds.

[JimmyVo16]

I did some regression tests for the Free and the family tiers to make sure my changes and Brandon's changes are both working.

Family.tier.testing.mov

Free.tier.testing.mov