Remove “Switch to Classic” feedback survey if responded in last month by lorretheboy · Pull Request #73436 · Expensify/App

lorretheboy · 2025-10-24T15:28:04Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #73156
PROPOSAL: #73156 (comment)

Tests

Login to a new account in ND
Go Account --> Troubleshoot --> Switch to Expensify Classic
Verify that Survey is required
Finish survey --> Go OD --> Switch back to ND
Go Account --> Troubleshoot --> Switch to Expensify Classic
Verify that Survey is not required

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

ANDROID.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

WEBSITE.ANDROID.mov

iOS: Native

IOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

WEBSITE.IOS.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

WEBSITE.mov

MacOS: Desktop

DESKTOP.mov

codecov · 2025-10-24T15:39:45Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...c/pages/settings/Troubleshoot/TroubleshootPage.tsx	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...c/pages/settings/Troubleshoot/TroubleshootPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

melvin-bot · 2025-10-25T15:29:12Z

@ishpaul777 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]

ishpaul777 · 2025-10-28T18:58:33Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
I verified proper code patterns were followed (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
- 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
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
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-10-29.at.1.28.27.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-10-29.at.1.13.01.AM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-10-29.at.1.01.04.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-10-29.at.12.58.13.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-10-29.at.12.28.44.AM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-10-29.at.1.35.57.AM.mov

OSBotify · 2025-10-28T22:21:58Z

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

OSBotify · 2025-10-30T07:30:39Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.2.41-0 🚀

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

jponikarchuk · 2025-10-30T09:48:45Z

This PR failing with original KI
Original KI is reproducible in: Web and mWeb, on Android and iOS apps we have no survey when switching to Expensify classic #73819

ishpaul777 · 2025-10-30T11:06:20Z

@jponikarchuk just to confirm, the steps below are failing? becuase i just tested it seems to work well, the requirement to skip survey form for @expensify.com emails are changed here and its no longer requirement

Login to a new account in ND
Go Account --> Troubleshoot --> Switch to Expensify Classic
Verify that Survey is required
Finish survey --> Go OD --> Switch back to ND
Go Account --> Troubleshoot --> Switch to Expensify Classic
Verify that Survey is not required

jponikarchuk · 2025-10-30T14:26:35Z

Yes, you are right @ishpaul777 . PR is fail according to steps you shared (Web and mWeb)

bandicam.2025-10-30.10-38-10-540.mp4

IuliiaHerets · 2025-10-30T15:53:09Z

@lorretheboy PR was failed with an original issue on Web, mWeb and Desktop

1761812935455.2025-10-30_11_27_39.mp4

ishpaul777 · 2025-10-30T16:56:16Z

@lorretheboy can you please help investigate ^ Thx!

lorretheboy · 2025-10-30T18:10:11Z

Sure, lemme check it

lorretheboy · 2025-10-31T16:20:43Z

Sorry, but I can't reproduce the issue both local & staging. Should we request to re-verify it or is there any steps that I missed here? Thanks @ishpaul777

Screen.Recording.2025-11-01.at.00.17.44.mov

Screen.Recording.2025-11-01.at.00.19.11.mov

OSBotify · 2025-10-31T21:16:57Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.2.41-6 🚀

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

ishpaul777 · 2025-11-02T23:42:40Z

@lorretheboy i see that when QA test they use Try New Expensify button to redirect back from OD to ND which resets the nvp_tryNewDot timestamp is reseted, @puneetlath do you think that can be changed on OD side ?

puneetlath · 2025-11-03T22:52:08Z

Hmm, yeah I think we should update that. That shouldn't be clearing the history of the NVP. Are you able to implement that fix @ishpaul777?

ishpaul777 · 2025-11-03T23:07:12Z

yes can take a look at this, ETA: Early next week

ishpaul777 · 2025-11-07T19:49:20Z

@puneetlath @lorretheboy After some investigation on the backend, I don’t think it’s a good idea to rely on classicRedirect.timestamp to determine the last redirect to ND. Instead, we should use the earliest timestamp from classicRedirect.dismissedReasons and check against that

we need a follow up fix on Frontend here @lorretheboy

ishpaul777 · 2025-11-10T10:55:20Z

@lorretheboy gentle bump ^

lorretheboy · 2025-11-10T10:56:58Z

Thx, i will open pr for review today

puneetlath · 2025-11-10T21:04:48Z

@ishpaul777 why not? Shouldn't the classicRedirect.timestamp be the same as the latest timestamp from the dismissedReasons?

ishpaul777 · 2025-11-11T00:10:21Z

@puneetlath This happens because each time we redirect, we reset classicRedirect.timestamp, which represents the time the user was redirected. I’m not entirely sure the impact, but if we don’t reset it, the timestamp will only reflect the first redirect, leading to inaccurate data representation no other way know last time user is redirected from classic to ND

lorretheboy · 2025-11-11T14:51:50Z

@ishpaul777 It is ready for review now #74711

puneetlath · 2025-11-11T15:11:58Z

Sorry, I'm not following. We want to not show the survey based on whether they've seen it before in the last month. To do that, we should look at the last time they were re-directed, right? Not the first time? And isn't classicRedirect.timestamp the timestamp of the last time they were re-directed?

ishpaul777 · 2025-11-11T18:12:44Z

Sorry, I'm not following. We want to not show the survey based on whether they've seen it before in the last month. To do that, we should look at the last time they were re-directed, right? Not the first time? And isn't classicRedirect.timestamp the timestamp of the last time they were re-directed?

Sorry, I misspoke earlier, I meant we should use the latest timestamp, not the earliest.
You’re right, we should look at the most recent time the user was redirected from ND → OD, which is captured in classicRedirect.dismissedReasons timestamps.
The classicRedirect.timestamp, on the other hand, represents the timestamp for the OD → ND transition

puneetlath · 2025-11-11T18:52:22Z

Ahhh ok got it. That makes sense to me.

FitseTLT · 2026-03-13T19:28:52Z

src/pages/settings/Troubleshoot/TroubleshootPage.tsx

                : {
                      action() {
+                          if (surveyCompletedWithinLastMonth) {
+                              openOldDotLink(CONST.OLDDOT_URLS.INBOX, true);


We should have switchToOldDot before opening old dot to avoid redirecting back to ND on refresh like we solved it here.

fix: handle switch to classic form

ed567a3

melvin-bot bot assigned lorretheboy Oct 24, 2025

lorretheboy changed the title ~~fix: handle switch to classic form~~ Remove “Switch to Classic” feedback survey if responded in last month Oct 24, 2025

lorretheboy added 2 commits October 25, 2025 22:54

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into fix/73156

0c4e874

fix: optimize

b15e90d

lorretheboy marked this pull request as ready for review October 25, 2025 15:29

lorretheboy requested a review from a team as a code owner October 25, 2025 15:29

melvin-bot bot requested review from ishpaul777 and removed request for a team October 25, 2025 15:29

fix: add dep

ae259c9

ishpaul777 approved these changes Oct 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from puneetlath October 28, 2025 20:18

puneetlath approved these changes Oct 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

puneetlath merged commit 6c78263 into Expensify:main Oct 28, 2025
25 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-10-30 #73803

Closed

71 tasks

jponikarchuk mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2025

Hybrid - No exit survey when switching to Expensify classic #73819

Closed

8 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Oct 31, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-12-11] [Due for payment 2025-11-07] [$250] Remove “Switch to Classic” feedback survey if responded in last month #73156

Closed

16 tasks

lorretheboy mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2025

Remove “Switch to Classic” feedback survey if responded in last month #74711

Merged

54 tasks

FitseTLT reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

lorretheboy commented Oct 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Oct 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 25, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Oct 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

jponikarchuk commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

jponikarchuk commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

IuliiaHerets commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Nov 2, 2025

Uh oh!

puneetlath commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Nov 10, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Nov 10, 2025

Uh oh!

puneetlath commented Nov 10, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

puneetlath commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

ishpaul777 commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

puneetlath commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

FitseTLT Mar 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

lorretheboy commented Oct 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Oct 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ishpaul777 commented Oct 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading