[Due for payment 2025-05-14] [$250] Expense Reports-After closing receipt view, app opens Inbox (web), iOS app reopens same report

[mitarachim]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.1.27-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: No
If this was caught on HybridApp, is this reproducible on New Expensify Standalone?: No, reproducible on hybrid only
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: #59735
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Device used: Mac 15.3 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Log in with Expensifail account.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Submit an expense with receipt.
4. Go to Reports > Expense Reports.
5. Click on the expense report from Step 3.
6. Click on the receipt.
7. On web, click X button to close the receipt view.
8. On mweb, Android/iOS, tap app back button, then tap app back button again.

Expected Result:

On web (Step 7), app will remain on Reports page after closing receipt view.
On mweb, Android/iOS, after closing receipt view and tapping app back button, app will return to Expense Reports.

Actual Result:

On web (Step 7), app opens Inbox after closing receipt view.
On mweb, Android/iOS, after closing receipt view and tapping app back button, app reopens the same report.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: Standalone
• Android: HybridApp
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Standalone
• iOS: HybridApp
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Bug6799227_1744358320737.iOS.mp4

Bug6799227_1744358320756.web_.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021911809936832796582
• Upwork Job ID: 1911809936832796582
• Last Price Increase: 2025-04-14

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @sakluger / @joekaufmanexpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sakluger (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[daledah]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

On web (Step 7), app opens Inbox after closing receipt view.
On mweb, Android/iOS, after closing receipt view and tapping app back button, app reopens the same report.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We don't handle case that we open the receipt in Expense Report in Search page

App/src/pages/TransactionReceiptPage.tsx

Lines 97 to 103 in d0c12b6

	// Receipt Page can be opened either from Reports or from Search RHP view
	// We have to handle going back to correct screens, if it was opened from RHP just close the modal, otherwise go to Report Page
	const rootState = navigationRef.getRootState() as State<RootNavigatorParamList>;
	const secondToLastRoute = rootState.routes.at(-2);
	if (secondToLastRoute?.name === NAVIGATORS.RIGHT_MODAL_NAVIGATOR || isDraftTransaction) {
	Navigation.dismissModal();
	} else {

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

WE should add the case we open the receipt in Expense Report in Search page by updating the condition here

       if (secondToLastRoute?.name === NAVIGATORS.RIGHT_MODAL_NAVIGATOR || secondToLastRoute?.name === NAVIGATORS.SEARCH_FULLSCREEN_NAVIGATOR || isDraftTransaction) {
            Navigation.dismissModal();
        } 

App/src/pages/TransactionReceiptPage.tsx

Lines 101 to 103 in d0c12b6

	if (secondToLastRoute?.name === NAVIGATORS.RIGHT_MODAL_NAVIGATOR || isDraftTransaction) {
	Navigation.dismissModal();
	} else {

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

None

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[bernhardoj]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Closing the receipt preview from search page leads the user to the report screen.

What is the root cause of that problem?

When the modal close, we use dismiss modal with a reportID that will open the report page.

App/src/pages/TransactionReceiptPage.tsx

Lines 96 to 112 in 6569205

	const onModalClose = () => {
	// Receipt Page can be opened either from Reports or from Search RHP view
	// We have to handle going back to correct screens, if it was opened from RHP just close the modal, otherwise go to Report Page
	const rootState = navigationRef.getRootState() as State<RootNavigatorParamList>;
	const secondToLastRoute = rootState.routes.at(-2);
	if (secondToLastRoute?.name === NAVIGATORS.RIGHT_MODAL_NAVIGATOR || isDraftTransaction) {
	Navigation.dismissModal();
	} else {
	const isOneTransactionThread = isOneTransactionThreadReportUtils(report?.reportID, report?.parentReportID, parentReportAction);
	const dismissModalReportID = isOneTransactionThread ? report?.parentReportID : report?.reportID;
	if (!dismissModalReportID) {
	Navigation.dismissModal();
	return;
	}
	Navigation.dismissModalWithReport({reportID: dismissModalReportID});
	}
	};

When it was implemented, we use goBack with fallback route to the report details (it should be report). But now, we have a complex condition to decide whether to use dismiss modal with or without report.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

I suggest to simplify it by just using dismissModal for all cases.
onModalClose={Navigation.dismissModal}

What specific scenarios should we cover in automated tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?

N/A

[melvin-bot]

@sakluger Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021911809936832796582

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @rushatgabhane (External)

[melvin-bot]

@rushatgabhane Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[rushatgabhane]

When #35497, we use goBack with fallback route to the report details (it should be report). But now, we have a complex condition to decide whether to use dismiss modal with or without report

@bernhardoj i think the intention is to handle the case when you land on the link directly?

I suggest to simplify it by just using dismissModal for all cases. onModalClose={Navigation.dismissModal}

What do you thin of - goBack with fallback route to the report details?

[bernhardoj]

i think the intention is to handle the case when you land on the link directly?

I can't find a discussion about this on the issue that implemented it, but assuming we apply my proposal, and we access the receipt modal directly, the nav stack will be [Home, ReportScreen, TransactionReceiptPage].

So, the fallback isn't needed since the report screen is already added to the stack.

What do you thin of - goBack with fallback route to the report details?

Just to clarify, report detail is the incorrect fallback, it should be the report screen since user access the receipt from the report screen.

[rushatgabhane]

ahhh thank you for helping me understand

[rushatgabhane]

i like @bernhardoj 's proposal

🎀 👀 🎀

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @youssef-lr, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Sounds good! PR merged and is awaiting deploy to staging

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.1.40-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• Dismiss modal when closing receipt view #60698

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-05-14. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @bernhardoj requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests

[melvin-bot]

@rushatgabhane @sakluger / @joekaufmanexpensify @rushatgabhane The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@rushatgabhane could you handle checklist so we can prep to pay next week?

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Bumped in slack

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Pending checklist

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Reviewer: @rushatgabhane owed $250 via NewDot
• Reviewer: @bernhardoj owed $250 via NewDot

BugZero Checklist (@sakluger)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the necessary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1911809936832796582/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Paying is pending on @rushatgabhane completing checklist

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Bumped checklist.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@rushatgabhane bump on checklist when you have a sec!

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Bumped in slack

[rushatgabhane]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
• 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
• 2d. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

  Link to comment: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/35497/files#r2095824976

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

  Link to discussion: N.A. not critical

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

1. Open a workspace chat with no unsettled expenses
2. Create a new money request
3. Go to Reports and then switch to Expense Reports type
4. Open the expense report from step 2
5. Press on the receipt
6. Close the receipt
7. On Web/Desktop, verify that you stay at the search report screen
8. On mWeb/Android/iOS, go back twice and verify that you stay at the search screen

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[joekaufmanexpensify]

TY! This is a pretty minor bug, so I think we can skip adding a new regression test for now. No need to have QA run this one every time.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

All set to pay. We need to pay:

• @bernhardoj $250 for PR via NewDot.
• @rushatgabhane $250 for C+ via NewDot.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@bernhardoj @rushatgabhane Please request payment at your earliest convenience. Closing this as it's otherwise all set. TY!

[bernhardoj]

Requested in ND.

[JmillsExpensify]

$250 approved for @bernhardoj