Skip to content

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

Merged
puneetlath merged 9 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
lorretheboy:fix-v2/73156
Dec 2, 2025
Merged

Remove “Switch to Classic” feedback survey if responded in last month#74711
puneetlath merged 9 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
lorretheboy:fix-v2/73156

Conversation

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #73156
PROPOSAL: #73156 (comment)

Tests

  1. Login to a new account in ND
  2. Go Account --> Troubleshoot --> Switch to Expensify Classic
  3. Verify that Survey is required
  4. Finish survey --> Go OD --> Switch back to ND
  5. Go Account --> Troubleshoot --> Switch to Expensify Classic
  6. 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

  • 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.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
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 10, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...c/pages/settings/Troubleshoot/TroubleshootPage.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

@lorretheboy lorretheboy marked this pull request as ready for review November 11, 2025 14:51
@lorretheboy lorretheboy requested review from a team as code owners November 11, 2025 14:51
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from hungvu193 and removed request for a team November 11, 2025 14:51
@melvin-bot
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 11, 2025

@hungvu193 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]

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

lorretheboy commented Nov 11, 2025

@hungvu193 @joekaufmanexpensify The auto assignment was wrong. I don't know why it assigns this PR to you two. @ishpaul777 will be the reviewer here

@hungvu193
Copy link
Contributor

hungvu193 commented Nov 11, 2025

Ishpaul will handle internal issue from now on so I think that's why it doesn't auto assign him. What's the purpose of this PR btw? I thought the issue was all set 🤔

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

lorretheboy commented Nov 11, 2025

Ishpaul will handle internal issue from now on so I think that's why it doesn't auto assign him. What's the purpose of this PR btw? I thought the issue was all set 🤔

We update the timestamp to prevent issue from happening in old dot
Thread: #73436 (comment)

@joekaufmanexpensify
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, seems like we are still discussing whether to proceed here. Given @ishpaul777 was the reviewer for the issue though, I expect we will have him do this quickly if we end up proceeding with it

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

yes i can take this one as follow up to that PR.

@ishpaul777 ishpaul777 requested review from ishpaul777 and removed request for hungvu193 November 11, 2025 18:15
Copy link
Contributor

@joekaufmanexpensify joekaufmanexpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good from a product perspective

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

on my list will review today

let timestampToCheck: Date = tryNewDot.classicRedirect?.timestamp;

if (dismissedReasons && dismissedReasons.length > 0) {
const earliestReason = dismissedReasons.reduce((earliest, current) => {
Copy link
Contributor

@ishpaul777 ishpaul777 Nov 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this should be latest not earliest, we want to know lastTime user redirected from ND -> OD and compare if 30 days against that #73436 (comment)

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

@lorretheboy gentle bump!

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ishpaul777 Please check again. I just fixed it. Thx

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

lorretheboy commented Nov 18, 2025

ESLint check failed does not relate to this PR I think

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

ishpaul777 commented Nov 18, 2025

seems related to changed files and quick fix, lets fix this @lorretheboy

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

🚧 @MonilBhavsar has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

ishpaul777 commented Nov 20, 2025

@lorretheboy i think this is still not working as expected

  1. Login to a new account in ND
  2. Go Account --> Troubleshoot --> Switch to Expensify Classic
  3. Verify that Survey is required
  4. Finish survey --> Go OD --> Switch back to ND (with Try new expensify button)
  5. Go Account --> Troubleshoot --> Switch to Expensify Classic
  6. Verify that Survey is not required -- ❌
Screen.Recording.2025-11-18.at.11.14.52.PM.mov

Comment on lines +71 to +95
const surveyCompletedWithinLastMonth = useMemo(() => {
const surveyThresholdInDays = 30;
if (!tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.timestamp || !tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.dismissed) {
if (!tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.dismissed) {
return false;
}
const daysSinceLastSurvey = differenceInDays(new Date(), new Date(tryNewDot.classicRedirect.timestamp));

const dismissedReasons = tryNewDot.classicRedirect?.dismissedReasons;
let timestampToCheck: Date = tryNewDot.classicRedirect?.timestamp;

if (dismissedReasons && dismissedReasons.length > 0) {
const latestReason = dismissedReasons.reduce((latest, current) => {
const currentDate = current.timestamp;
const latestDate = latest.timestamp;
return currentDate > latestDate ? current : latest;
});
timestampToCheck = latestReason.timestamp;
}

if (!timestampToCheck) {
return false;
}

const daysSinceLastSurvey = differenceInDays(new Date(), timestampToCheck);
return daysSinceLastSurvey < surveyThresholdInDays;
}, [tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.timestamp, tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.dismissed]);
}, [tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.timestamp, tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.dismissed, tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.dismissedReasons]);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please check this i think this should work correctly

const surveyCompletedWithinLastMonth = useMemo(() => {
        const surveyThresholdInDays = 30;
        const {dismissedReasons} = tryNewDot?.classicRedirect ?? {};
        if (dismissedReasons?.length === 0) {
            return false;
        }

        let timestampToCheck;
        if (dismissedReasons && dismissedReasons.length > 0) {
            const latestReason = dismissedReasons.reduce((latest, current) => {
                const currentDate = current.timestamp;
                const latestDate = latest.timestamp;
                return currentDate > latestDate ? current : latest;
            });
            timestampToCheck = latestReason.timestamp;
        }

        if (!timestampToCheck) {
            return false;
        }

        const daysSinceLastSurvey = differenceInDays(new Date(), timestampToCheck);
        return daysSinceLastSurvey < surveyThresholdInDays;
    }, [tryNewDot?.classicRedirect]);

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

@lorretheboy please take this with priorty, thanks!

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ishpaul777 I will update it shortly

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

lorretheboy commented Nov 21, 2025

@ishpaul777 hmm it looks like BE has just updated something. Currently, after switch to OD and tap back to Try new Expensify button, the tryNewDot object value is

{
    "classicRedirect": {
        "completedHybridAppOnboarding": true,
        "dismissed": false,
        "timestamp": "2025-11-20T16:13:11.793Z"
    },
    "tappedTryNewExpensifyButton": {
        "timestamp": "2025-11-20T16:13:11.793Z"
    }
}

There is no dismissedReasons anymore. If BE did update like this (BE makes sure that tappedTryNewExpensifyButton will only be updated after we press the try new button, and classicRedirect will only be updated we press try OD button), I think we can now just need to check classicRedirect.timestamp, what do you think?

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

ishpaul777 commented Nov 21, 2025

is classicRedirect.timestamp now not resetted when when user click try new expensify button?


i see this pr on frontend made changes to exit survey flow, @puneetlath do you know if we made any BE changes also ?

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

Investigated this on BE and found the root cause why dismissedReasons is missing
(see #75181 (comment))

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

@lorretheboy we fixed it on Backend, can you please retest?

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ishpaul777 I just tested, it works fine. Maybe we can request adhoc build to double check again?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

🚧 @puneetlath has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #74711.

Android 🤖 iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/74711/index.html https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/74711/index.html
Android iOS
Web 🕸️
https://74711.pr-testing.expensify.com
Web

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

@lorretheboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Screen.Recording.2025-11-27.at.02.42.00.mov

@ishpaul777 Please do the final review. I tested the adhoc build, it works

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

ishpaul777 commented Nov 27, 2025

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
  • 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.2025-11-27.at.6.25.01.AM.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2025-11-27.at.6.01.38.AM.mov
iOS: HybridApp
ScreenRecording_11-27-2025.06-03-47_1.MP4
iOS: mWeb Safari
ScreenRecording_11-27-2025.06-10-44_1.MP4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2025-11-27.at.5.57.58.AM.mov

@ishpaul777
Copy link
Contributor

@codex review

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment on lines 70 to +93
const surveyCompletedWithinLastMonth = useMemo(() => {
const surveyThresholdInDays = 30;
if (!tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.timestamp || !tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.dismissed) {
const {dismissedReasons} = tryNewDot?.classicRedirect ?? {};
if (dismissedReasons?.length === 0) {
return false;
}
const daysSinceLastSurvey = differenceInDays(new Date(), new Date(tryNewDot.classicRedirect.timestamp));

let timestampToCheck;
if (dismissedReasons && dismissedReasons.length > 0) {
const latestReason = dismissedReasons.reduce((latest, current) => {
const currentDate = current.timestamp;
const latestDate = latest.timestamp;
return currentDate > latestDate ? current : latest;
});
timestampToCheck = latestReason.timestamp;
}

if (!timestampToCheck) {
return false;
}

const daysSinceLastSurvey = differenceInDays(new Date(), timestampToCheck);
return daysSinceLastSurvey < surveyThresholdInDays;
}, [tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.timestamp, tryNewDot?.classicRedirect?.dismissed]);
}, [tryNewDot?.classicRedirect]);

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Survey skip ignores existing dismissal timestamp

The new surveyCompletedWithinLastMonth logic now only looks at classicRedirect.dismissedReasons to decide whether to bypass the Classic feedback survey. That array is optional and is not written anywhere else in the client, while the rest of the app (e.g., InitialSettingsPage) still relies on classicRedirect.timestamp/dismissed that are present in the NVP payload today. For users whose classicRedirect data only contains the existing timestamp/dismissed fields (i.e., no dismissedReasons), this hook now always returns false, so the “Switch to Classic” flow will prompt the survey every time even if they completed it within the last 30 days.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

classicRedirect.dismissedReasons should always exist if user has filled the survey form so comment is not as useful 👎

@puneetlath puneetlath merged commit 1bd3013 into Expensify:main Dec 2, 2025
34 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Dec 2, 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 Dec 3, 2025

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.2.71-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Dec 4, 2025

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.2.71-5 🚀

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

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants