fix(workspace): resolve workflow inconsistency based on creation flow by marufsharifi · Pull Request #77898 · Expensify/App

marufsharifi · 2025-12-17T16:05:47Z

Explanation of Change

This change makes workspace creation consistent, whether a workspace is created through the onboarding flow or the user skips workspace creation. In both cases, the resulting workspace will have the following settings:

Submission frequency: ON
Add approvals: OFF
Make or track payments: OFF

Fixed Issues

$ #75909
PROPOSAL: #75909 (Comment)

Tests

Sign up new gmail account
Choose 'Track and budget expenses'
Skip workspace creation during onboarding
Complete the flow
Create workspace
Go to Workflows
Submission frequency: ON, Add approvals, Make or track payments: OFF

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests

QA Steps

Same as Tests

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.1404-10-17.at.5.48.44.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.1404-10-17.at.5.50.03.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.1404-10-17.at.5.51.56.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.1404-10-17.at.5.53.31.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.1404-10-17.at.5.42.34.PM.mp4

melvin-bot · 2026-01-07T13:57:22Z

@ZhenjaHorbach 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 · 2026-01-07T15:51:43Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/actions/App.ts	`45.36% <0.00%> (-0.23%)`	⬇️
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

trjExpensify

I don't think we want to over index the default workspace setup on an optimised track setup (i.e no approvals and no payments) for anyone that didn't sign-up with the track intent. It's better we assume the business case when the intent is unclear or ambiguous. For example, the user chooses "Something else" in onboarding and later creates a workspace.

Looking at the parent bug report, the problem was with a track intent sign-up. Whereby, if they choose to create a workspace in the onboarding modal initially, or skipped it and later created one, that intended default setup for the track intent user differed - but they should have been consistent.

CC: @heyjennahay @francoisl from the parent issue, and @danielrvidal too as I think you were involved in that onboarding stuff!

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-01-07T20:01:41Z

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

2026-01-12.18.18.20.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

2026-01-12.18.21.31.mov

iOS: HybridApp

2026-01-12.18.18.20.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

2026-01-12.18.21.31.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

2026-01-12.18.15.58.mov

danielrvidal · 2026-01-08T00:52:45Z

What @trjExpensify is saying here makes sense to me!

marufsharifi · 2026-01-08T03:24:22Z

@ZhenjaHorbach, Just to confirm, based on this comment, should I apply the change only for the users who signed up with a track intent?

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-01-08T11:08:12Z

@ZhenjaHorbach, Just to confirm, based on this comment, should I apply the change only for the users who signed up with a track intent?

I think so
@trjExpensify
Could you confirm this, please?

trjExpensify · 2026-01-08T11:18:17Z

Yep 👍

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-01-09T19:15:36Z

@marufsharifi
Could you update your PR, please?

marufsharifi · 2026-01-11T12:07:15Z

@ZhenjaHorbach, pr is updated. thanks

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-01-12T17:22:42Z

LGTM!

Tom's change request was addressed

OSBotify · 2026-01-12T18:46:59Z

✋ 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 · 2026-01-13T03:39:02Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.3.0-0 🚀

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

…kflow-inconsistency" This reverts commit bf83a7b, reversing changes made to 6c4d125.

francoisl · 2026-01-13T19:06:32Z

This ended up causing #79407, we're reverting this PR for now. The incorrect message is created from the backend, so we'll probably need some backend changes alongside this.

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-01-13T19:09:25Z

This ended up causing #79407, we're reverting this PR for now. The incorrect message is created from the backend, so we'll probably need some backend changes alongside this.

Do we really need to revert this PR? 😅
If it's a backend issue

francoisl · 2026-01-13T19:35:16Z

We can't do CPs in the part of the codebase that we'll need to update, so even if we can fix it today or tomorrow, the fix lively won't be live for 1 more day after that. So yes to avoid the wrong and confusing message, let's revert.

[CP Staging] Revert #77898 – fix(workspace): resolve workflow inconsistency based on creation flow

[CP Staging] Revert #77898 – fix(workspace): resolve workflow inconsistency based on creation flow (cherry picked from commit 25efc73) (cherry-picked to staging by francoisl)

ZhenjaHorbach · 2026-01-13T19:40:38Z

We can't do CPs in the part of the codebase that we'll need to update, so even if we can fix it today or tomorrow, the fix lively won't be live for 1 more day after that. So yes to avoid the wrong and confusing message, let's revert.

Fair enough

@marufsharifi
Could you please reopen the PR?
And then we will wait for BE fix before merging!

OSBotify · 2026-01-14T02:55:21Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.3.0-8 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-01-14T03:23:27Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.3.1-0 🚀

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

marufsharifi · 2026-01-14T05:25:43Z

We can't do CPs in the part of the codebase that we'll need to update, so even if we can fix it today or tomorrow, the fix lively won't be live for 1 more day after that. So yes to avoid the wrong and confusing message, let's revert.

Fair enough

@marufsharifi Could you please reopen the PR? And then we will wait for BE fix before merging!

@ZhenjaHorbach, new pr is ready. thanks

OSBotify · 2026-01-14T21:31:34Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.3.1-1 🚀

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

fix(workspace): resolve workflow inconsistency based on creation flow

416a6eb

melvin-bot bot assigned marufsharifi Dec 17, 2025

Merge branch 'main' into fix/workspace-workflow-inconsistency

c3c5009

marufsharifi marked this pull request as ready for review January 7, 2026 13:57

marufsharifi requested review from a team as code owners January 7, 2026 13:57

melvin-bot bot requested review from ZhenjaHorbach and removed request for a team January 7, 2026 13:57

melvin-bot bot requested review from trjExpensify and removed request for a team January 7, 2026 13:57

trjExpensify previously requested changes Jan 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

marufsharifi added 3 commits January 10, 2026 16:04

Merge branch 'main' into fix/workspace-workflow-inconsistency

81b2627

Merge branch 'main' into fix/workspace-workflow-inconsistency

b47c13f

consider user intent when creating workspace

a19b82f

ZhenjaHorbach approved these changes Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from francoisl January 12, 2026 17:22

francoisl approved these changes Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

francoisl merged commit bf83a7b into Expensify:main Jan 12, 2026
31 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-01-13 #79402

Closed

91 tasks

mitarachim mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-01-21] Workspace - Message from Concierge appears in workspace chat after creating a workspace #79407

Closed

7 tasks

francoisl added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2026

Revert "Merge pull request #77898 from marufsharifi/fix/workspace-wor…

349ea96

…kflow-inconsistency" This reverts commit bf83a7b, reversing changes made to 6c4d125.

francoisl mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2026

[CP Staging] Revert #77898 – fix(workspace): resolve workflow inconsistency based on creation flow #79504

Merged

53 tasks

thienlnam added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2026

Merge pull request #79504 from Expensify/francois-revert-77898

25efc73

[CP Staging] Revert #77898 – fix(workspace): resolve workflow inconsistency based on creation flow

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2026

[Payment due 2026-02-20] [$250] Workspace - Workflows inconsistancy depends of creation flow #75909

Closed

16 tasks

Conversation

marufsharifi commented Dec 17, 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!

melvin-bot bot commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 7, 2026 • edited by github-actions bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

danielrvidal commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jan 11, 2026

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

francoisl commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

francoisl commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

marufsharifi commented Dec 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 7, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading