Skip to content

Fix second overlay is shown when closing the wide RHP#73903

Merged
iwiznia merged 2 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
bernhardoj:fix/72115-app-crash-when-pressing-the-wide-rhp-overlay
Nov 4, 2025
Merged

Fix second overlay is shown when closing the wide RHP#73903
iwiznia merged 2 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
bernhardoj:fix/72115-app-crash-when-pressing-the-wide-rhp-overlay

Conversation

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor

@bernhardoj bernhardoj commented Oct 31, 2025

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #72115
PROPOSAL: #72115 (comment)

Tests

Same as QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

  1. Go to workspace chat
  2. Create two expenses with the same amount
  3. Open the expense report
  4. Press Review duplicates
  5. Press on any expense preview on the RHP
  6. Press on any money request field (for example, amount)
  7. (web/desktop) Verify there is an overlay
  8. Go back (web/desktop) by pressing on the overlay to close the page
  9. Press the wide RHP back button
  10. (web/desktop) Verify there is an overlay
  11. Go back (web/desktop) by pressing on the overlay to close the page
  12. Verify the page is closed without crashing
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
  • 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • 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
android.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
android.mweb.mp4
iOS: Native
ios.11.35.37.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
ios.mweb.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
web.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
desktop.mp4

@bernhardoj bernhardoj requested a review from a team as a code owner October 31, 2025 03:31
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from parasharrajat October 31, 2025 03:32
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team October 31, 2025 03:32
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Oct 31, 2025

@parasharrajat 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]

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/components/WideRHPContextProvider/index.tsx 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/components/WideRHPContextProvider/index.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 6 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.

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

@bernhardoj Please merge main.

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

@parasharrajat Done

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

@bernhardoj There is one catch here, as you can see, the overlay does not apply when report RHP is open again on another report RHP. Do you have a solution for that? But I don't consider that a issue.

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

parasharrajat commented Nov 3, 2025

Thoughts @bernhardoj?

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, missed it.

the overlay does not apply when report RHP is open again on another report RHP

How to do this?

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

parasharrajat commented Nov 3, 2025

@bernhardoj Please check this vid. When we click the expense on the review duplicate pages, check the backdrop.

31.10.2025_14.34.03_REC.mp4

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hmm, I think the overlay shows just fine. That's how in staging too.

w.mp4

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

Yes, it is the same as staging, but can we fix that, too? So when you open expense preview from the resolve duplicates page, one of the backdrop is removed where it shouldn't instead one more should be added because of the new modal.

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

So, currently, when we open a second report RHP, the overlay looks like this:
image

Do you want it to look like this (darker) because we have 2 report RHP?
image

I think what we have now is the correct one. The second overlay should only show when a RHP is shown on top of a wide RHP.

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

I think you are not getting the issue. Let me clarify it.

In this vid #73903 (comment)

  1. At 0.02 sec, first backdrop overlay is shown.
image
  1. Then 0.03 sec, second.
image
  1. Then it should third one over it at 0.05 second
image

But step 3 look like step 1 with only one ovelay @bernhardoj

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah, that's what I understood. I don't think we need the 3rd overlay. It should just behave as in normal RHP when we open multiple RHPs, only 1 overlay.

The extra overlay is needed when an RHP is shown over wide RHP so the wide RHP is overlayed.

Screenshot 2025-11-04 at 22 19 51

This is how it currently looks.
image

And this is what you expected, right?
image

If you really think we should do the above, then I think it's better to create a separate issue and ask the design team to review it.

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

Yes, that is the correct representation of what I was expecting. Sure, fine by new issue for this.

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

31.10.2025_21.17.40_REC.mp4

🔲 iOS / Safari

31.10.2025_20.53.22_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Desktop

31.10.2025_14.47.15_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

31.10.2025_14.34.03_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / Chrome

🔲 Android / native

31.10.2025_20.46.31_REC.mp4

Copy link
Member

@parasharrajat parasharrajat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • 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 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
    • 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.js 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 form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label 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.
  • 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.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from iwiznia November 4, 2025 14:49
@iwiznia iwiznia merged commit 2da2932 into Expensify:main Nov 4, 2025
26 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Nov 4, 2025

✋ 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
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Nov 4, 2025

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/iwiznia in version: 9.2.44-0 🚀

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

@IuliiaHerets
Copy link

@bernhardoj QA team failed this PR with an original issue on Web and Desktop

1762311621056.Web_72115.mp4

@bernhardoj
Copy link
Contributor Author

@IuliiaHerets the PR was reverted

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Nov 5, 2025

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.2.44-5 🚀

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

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants