[No QA] [Odometer] Removal of backTo from Odometer flow #79339

jakubkalinski0 · 2026-01-12T11:34:08Z

Explanation of Change

According to new contributing guide backTo is deprecated and shouldn't be added in newly added routes. For simpler implementation we initially added backTo to Odometer flow. This PR takes care of the complete removal of backTo from this newly added flow.

App/contributingGuides/NAVIGATION.md

Lines 440 to 441 in f330976

    
           > [!WARNING] 
        
           > **Deprecated**: The `backTo` parameter is deprecated and should not be used in new implementations. Most problems that `backTo` solved can be resolved by adding one or more routes for a single screen. If you don't know how to solve your problem, contact someone from the navigation team. Old documentation on how to use `backTo` can be found below.

In the case of this flow the main issue when removing backTo is that we no longer posses information whether we are editing values from confirmation page or we are inputting the initial values for the first time on the first screen.

In order to differentiate those 2 situations the startOfFlow prop was added to the IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer function signature. We set this flag to true when we use it directly in TabSelector here:

App/src/pages/iou/request/DistanceRequestStartPage.tsx

Lines 224 to 235 in b3bddac

    
           {false && ( 
        
               <TopTab.Screen name={CONST.TAB_REQUEST.DISTANCE_ODOMETER}> 
        
                   {() => ( 
        
                       <TabScreenWithFocusTrapWrapper> 
        
                           <IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer 
        
                               route={route} 
        
                               navigation={navigation} 
        
                           /> 
        
                       </TabScreenWithFocusTrapWrapper> 
        
                   )} 
        
               </TopTab.Screen> 
        
           )}

This way we can easily define isEditingConfirmation as a simple check if the current state is different than startOfFlow and isEditing. Then we can also replace backTo by simply creating confirmationRoute from the data we have and navigate directly to it. This way we keep clean url without backTo throughout the whole Odometer flow.

It was also very important that DiscardChangesConfirmation is shown only when user tries to leave the odometer page in the following situation:

user just started the expense creation
there is any input in the start reading or end reading

Fixed Issues

$ #79036
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Note:
When you want the Odometer to be show in the tab selector you need to first remove the false flag from here:

App/src/pages/iou/request/DistanceRequestStartPage.tsx

Lines 224 to 235 in b3bddac

    
           {false && ( 
        
               <TopTab.Screen name={CONST.TAB_REQUEST.DISTANCE_ODOMETER}> 
        
                   {() => ( 
        
                       <TabScreenWithFocusTrapWrapper> 
        
                           <IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer 
        
                               route={route} 
        
                               navigation={navigation} 
        
                           /> 
        
                       </TabScreenWithFocusTrapWrapper> 
        
                   )} 
        
               </TopTab.Screen> 
        
           )}

Go to FAB
Press Track distance
Press Odometer
Try to leave with empty values
Verify that no DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown
Go back to Odometer tab
Fill start reading or end reading or both (doesn't matter - the behaviour should be the same in each case)
Try to leave by clicking outside of RHP or by pressing < back button
Verify that DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown
Press Cancel on the DiscardChangesConfirmation modal and then Next
Choose recipient
When on confirmation page press Distance (you should be navigated to odometer page with readings fields filled)
Make some changes and press < back button
Verify that no DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown
Once again press Distance
Make some changes and press outside of the RHP
Verify that no DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown and that RHP closes
Now go through the odometer flow once again up to the point of confirmation page
Once again press Distance
Make some changes and press Save
Verify that no DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown and that the total distance changed appropriately
Now go to the just created expense and open it
Press on Distance in order to edit the values
Try to leave without changes (both pressing outside the RHP and < back button should work the same)
Verify that no DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown and that the RHP closes correctly (i.e. the odometer page closes)
Once again press Distance
Make some changes
Make some changes and press < back button or outside of RHP (both should behave the same)
Verify that no DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown and that RHP closes properly
Once again press Distance
Make some changes and press Save
Verify that no DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown and that the total distance changed appropriately
Now press the FAB
On the bottom of the popup menu you should see a quick action Track distance allowing you to create odometer expense to the same recipient to which you created the previous odometer expense
Press that quick action
Fill start reading or end reading or both (doesn't matter the behaviour should be the same in each case)
Try to leave by clicking outside of RHP or by pressing < back button
Verify that DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown
Press Cancel on the DiscardChangesConfirmation modal and then Create expense
Verify that no DiscardChangesConfirmation modal is shown; the RHP closes properly and the expense is correctly created
Now go to any direct 1:1 chat
Start the odometer expense flow from the chat
Verify that DiscardChangesConfirmation behaves the same way as in steps 4 to 21

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

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

NO QA

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

From steps 1 to 40:

1to40.mp4

From steps 41 to 43:

41to43.mov

jakubkalinski0 · 2026-01-12T11:35:36Z

For now there is some issue during the edition of an already existing expense so I am currently working on figuring that out

codecov · 2026-01-12T11:43:10Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter.tsx	`83.95% <ø> (ø)`
...c/components/ReportActionItem/MoneyRequestView.tsx	`0.25% <ø> (ø)`
src/ROUTES.ts	`12.23% <0.00%> (ø)`
...ou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 24 files with indirect coverage changes

jakubkalinski0 · 2026-01-12T12:17:27Z

For now there is some issue during the edition of an already existing expense so I am currently working on figuring that out

Fixed that. The issue that I am battling now is that when we are creating the expense from quick action then we should have the discardChangesConfirmation turned on but thats an issue since in quick action we skip everything else so the initial input is effectively the last screen so when we press create expense we run into the modal which tries to block navigation (in this case the navigation being closing the RHP)

Screen.Recording.2026-01-12.at.13.14.03.mov

…aviour_in_Odometer_flow

melvin-bot · 2026-01-12T20:32:51Z

@DylanDylann 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]

jakubkalinski0 · 2026-01-12T20:33:38Z

There is a pretty big number of test steps but they are not that complicated so don't be scared by that 😅

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 146c2acd22

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx

DylanDylann · 2026-01-13T05:44:39Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx

    report,
    route: {
-        params: {action, iouType, reportID, transactionID, backTo, backToReport},
+        params: {action, iouType, reportID, transactionID, backToReport},


Why do we need backToReport? From my check, it always be undefined. Should we remove it?

Actually it isn't always undefined. There are situations where it is needed. When a money request is launched directly from a report, that report ID is passed as backToReport. The route builders include it as an optional segment, and the submission handler uses it to navigate back to that report instead of defaulting to the active one. Without it, navigation would fall back to the active report and break that “return where you came from” behavior.

Screen.Recording.2026-01-13.at.11.07.45.mov

DylanDylann · 2026-01-13T05:46:41Z

@jakubkalinski0 Thanks for the PR. Instead of adding a new parameter, could we derive this value from the current route?

In the creation flow:

First Create (Using DistanceRequestStartPage route)
- /create/submit/start/1/878852491103229/distance-new/distance-odometer
Edit form confimation page (Using IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer route)
- /create/submit/distance-odometer/1/878852491103229

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx

…aviour_in_Odometer_flow

jakubkalinski0 · 2026-01-13T10:19:09Z

@jakubkalinski0 Thanks for the PR. Instead of adding a new parameter, could we derive this value from the current route?

In the creation flow:

First Create (Using DistanceRequestStartPage route)

/create/submit/start/1/878852491103229/distance-new/distance-odometer
Edit form confimation page (Using IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer route)

/create/submit/distance-odometer/1/878852491103229

Now that you mention it I think there is a chance that will work. I will look into it and let you know if it is possible to cover all required cases 🫡

…aters

DylanDylann · 2026-01-13T10:49:45Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx

+    const startOfFlow = routeName === SCREENS.MONEY_REQUEST.DISTANCE_CREATE;
    const isEditing = action === CONST.IOU.ACTION.EDIT;
-    const isCreatingNewRequest = !(backTo ?? isEditing);
+    const isEditingConfirmation = !startOfFlow && !isEditing;


Suggested change

const isEditingConfirmation = !startOfFlow && !isEditing;

const isEditingConfirmation = routeName !== SCREENS.MONEY_REQUEST.DISTANCE_CREATE && !isEditing;

I did it like that to be more readable in the future for people without the context, but we can simplify it like that if you want to

@jakubkalinski0 ok, so could you rename to isStartOfFlow ?

@DylanDylann I already changed it to your suggestion. I came to the conclusion that actually you can quite easily deduce what it means if you simply check what is that screen. Maybe we should add a one-line comment explaining whats the difference between isEditingConfirmation and isEditing because I can actually see that someone could find it confusing?

Yeah, the comment seems like a good idea

@Julesssss Then I will add it right now

@Julesssss Added ✅

DylanDylann · 2026-01-13T10:52:31Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx

            });

            if (shouldSkipConfirmation) {
+                setShouldEnableDiscardConfirmation(false);


@jakubkalinski0 Why do we need to add this?

In the case of skipConfirmation flow we don't choose the recipient nor do we go to confirmation page and create the expense right away thus closing the RHP which DiscardChangesConfirmation tries to block so we have to turn it off right before submission. I described it here

please allow me more time to sleep on it

Sure, no problemo

@jakubkalinski0 could we remove setShouldEnableDiscardConfirmation and using directly

<DiscardChangesConfirmation isEnabled={!isEditingConfirmation && !isEditing && !shouldSkipConfirmation}

Actually we can't do it this way. The DiscardChangesConfirmation has to be working in the case when shouldSkipConfirmation is True but has to be turned off just before submitting the expense in order to not show the discard modal when RHP closes on creation

I mean we could just turn it off completely in this case but then we would have inconsistent behaviour during the odometer expense creation flow depending where we start from which in my opinion would be pretty bad

DylanDylann · 2026-01-13T10:52:39Z

@jakubkalinski0 Please also remove

https://github.com/DylanDylann/App/blob/93c20db001daff751d53bfb9b073dba227d564c9/src/libs/Navigation/types.ts#L1742-L1743

DylanDylann · 2026-01-13T12:09:42Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx


-        if (backToReport) {
-            Navigation.goBack(backTo);
+        if (isEditingConfirmation) {


Why do you change this condition?

It's just incorrect. backToReport simply isn't indicative of editing from confirmation page thus the condition had to be changed

DylanDylann · 2026-01-13T12:18:38Z

@jakubkalinski0 I still question why do we need to introduce isEnabled prop in DiscardChangesConfirmation. Should we use the same approach as other places instead introducing new way?

For example, please see isSaved flag in IOURequestStepMerchant

jakubkalinski0 · 2026-01-13T12:25:32Z

@jakubkalinski0 I still question why do we need to introduce isEnabled prop in DiscardChangesConfirmation. Should we use the same approach as other places instead introducing new way?

For example, please see isSaved flag in IOURequestStepMerchant

@DylanDylann I didn't notice this approach and it felt more natural to me to add this isEnabled approach. But to be honest it seems way better to not meddle with it especially if there is already another approach present in the codebase. I am a fan of your proposition and will switch the code right away!

DylanDylann · 2026-01-13T12:30:13Z

For new features, I prefer to focus on the core logic of feature and limit refactoring anything. I think it's better to stick with the existing pattern for now and refactor in a separate PR later. This will save time and help us ship the feature faster. Thanks

jakubkalinski0 · 2026-01-13T13:50:03Z

@DylanDylann I think we will have to wait with this change of DiscardChangesConfirmation due to this PR thats currently introducing some changes to this component.

jakubkalinski0 · 2026-01-13T15:16:24Z

@DylanDylann I would propose that we move on with this PR and resolve the DiscardChangesConfirmation issue in another PR. This way we wouldn't have to hold onto this PR until changes from the PR modifying DiscardChangesConfirmation is on Main.

@Julesssss What do you think? Maybe we should wait for the changes of DiscardChangesConfirmation from this PR to land on main and then adjust the code to Dylans proposition (which I personally like and agree with) and possible all the changes that come with the changes made to that component? If the changes are extensive enough we could even create a separate issue to take care of that

Julesssss · 2026-01-13T18:27:01Z

would propose that we move on with this PR and resolve the DiscardChangesConfirmation issue in another PR.

I agree, especially as it's blocking the main feature work. DiscardChangesConfirmation PR also shouldn't be blocking our progress. I created a follow up issue here and added it to the tracker.

@DylanDylann could you complete your final review? I believe your latest comments have been addressed or responded to, but let me know if I missed something.

…aviour_in_Odometer_flow

…ngConfirmation in odometer

DylanDylann · 2026-01-14T03:41:02Z

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.2026-01-14.at.10.51.45.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-01-14.at.10.50.16.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-01-14.at.10.50.59.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-01-14.at.10.49.12.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-01-14.at.10.46.42.mov

DylanDylann · 2026-01-14T03:55:41Z

@Julesssss All yours

OSBotify · 2026-01-14T17:31:23Z

✋ 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 · 2026-01-15T01:03:32Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.3.2-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-01-16T23:16:41Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.3.3-8 🚀

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

Initial removal of backTo from IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer

bfab163

melvin-bot bot assigned jakubkalinski0 Jan 12, 2026

jakubkalinski0 changed the title ~~Removal of backTo from IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer~~ [Odometer] Removal of backTo from Odometer flow Jan 12, 2026

jakubkalinski0 added 3 commits January 12, 2026 12:43

Fixed backTo replacement for Editing

63cdf49

Complete removal of backTo from Odometer flow

d8675fc

Remove leftovers of backTo from Odometer flow

f088e58

jakubkalinski0 added 4 commits January 12, 2026 13:27

Fixed DiscardChangesConfirmation behaviour for Odometer

ea78e7f

Prettier run

8101656

Hide odometer from tabSelector

d3d41c9

Merge branch 'main' into jakubkalinski0/Replace_deprecated_backTo_beh…

146c2ac

…aviour_in_Odometer_flow

jakubkalinski0 marked this pull request as ready for review January 12, 2026 20:32

jakubkalinski0 requested review from a team as code owners January 12, 2026 20:32

melvin-bot bot requested review from DylanDylann and heyjennahay and removed request for a team January 12, 2026 20:32

github-actions bot reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved

jakubkalinski0 changed the title ~~[Odometer] Removal of backTo from Odometer flow~~ [No QA] [Odometer] Removal of backTo from Odometer flow Jan 12, 2026

DylanDylann reviewed Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved

Merge branch 'main' into jakubkalinski0/Replace_deprecated_backTo_beh…

1cbba68

…aviour_in_Odometer_flow

Recognize startOfFlow odometer by route names not by additional param…

885cce3

…aters

DylanDylann reviewed Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Adjusted odometer according to the review

7eb51eb

DylanDylann reviewed Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

jakubkalinski0 mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2026

[NO QA] [Odometer] Verify optimistic data is correct when offline #79497

Merged

53 tasks

Julesssss mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2026

[HOLD][Odometer] Improvement to DiscardChangesConfirmation usage #79502

Open

Julesssss previously approved these changes Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

jakubkalinski0 added 2 commits January 13, 2026 19:40

Merge branch 'main' into jakubkalinski0/Replace_deprecated_backTo_beh…

9922a00

…aviour_in_Odometer_flow

Added comment expalining the difference between isEditing and isEditi…

65c5c6d

…ngConfirmation in odometer

jakubkalinski0 dismissed Julesssss’s stale review via 65c5c6d January 13, 2026 18:52

DylanDylann approved these changes Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from Julesssss January 14, 2026 03:55

Julesssss approved these changes Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

Julesssss merged commit bc128a6 into Expensify:main Jan 14, 2026
31 of 33 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-01-14 #79606

Closed

36 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-01-23] [Odometer] Replace deprecated backTo behaviour in Odometer flow #79036

Closed

DylanDylann mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2026

Allow creating time expenses from global menu #79780

Merged

51 tasks

	> [!WARNING]
	> Deprecated: The `backTo` parameter is deprecated and should not be used in new implementations. Most problems that `backTo` solved can be resolved by adding one or more routes for a single screen. If you don't know how to solve your problem, contact someone from the navigation team. Old documentation on how to use `backTo` can be found below.

	{false && (
	<TopTab.Screen name={CONST.TAB_REQUEST.DISTANCE_ODOMETER}>
	{() => (
	<TabScreenWithFocusTrapWrapper>
	<IOURequestStepDistanceOdometer
	route={route}
	navigation={navigation}
	/>
	</TabScreenWithFocusTrapWrapper>
	)}
	</TopTab.Screen>
	)}

	const isEditingConfirmation = !startOfFlow && !isEditing;
	const isEditingConfirmation = routeName !== SCREENS.MONEY_REQUEST.DISTANCE_CREATE && !isEditing;

[No QA] [Odometer] Removal of backTo from Odometer flow #79339

[No QA] [Odometer] Removal of backTo from Odometer flow #79339

Uh oh!

Conversation

jakubkalinski0 commented Jan 12, 2026 • 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!

jakubkalinski0 commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 12, 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!

jakubkalinski0 commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

jakubkalinski0 commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jakubkalinski0 Jan 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jakubkalinski0 commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jakubkalinski0 Jan 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DylanDylann commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jakubkalinski0 Jan 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jakubkalinski0 commented Jan 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 12, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

jakubkalinski0 Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jakubkalinski0 Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jakubkalinski0 Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jakubkalinski0 commented Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jakubkalinski0 commented Jan 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

DylanDylann commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading