Part 5: Remove Onyx.connect() for the key: ONYXKEYS.SESSION in src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

[thelullabyy]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #66412
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Setup: two accounts, A and B, in the same DM or workspace room; sign in as A.

1. As B, send a message in the chat. As A, open that chat.
2. Right-click (or long-press on mobile) B's message → verify Flag as offensive appears in the context menu.
3. Right-click your own message → verify Flag as offensive does not appear.
4. Open the Concierge chat, right-click a Concierge message → verify Flag as offensive does not appear.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Please refer to Tests section

• 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
• 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 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
  • 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: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-09-07.at.00.43.48.mov

[codecov]

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/ReportUtils.ts	87.25% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
...es/inbox/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.tsx	40.34% <100.00%> (ø)
src/pages/DynamicFlagCommentPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@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]

[dylanexpensify]

Looks good from a product perspective 👍

[DylanDylann]

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 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 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)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-09-17.at.14.26.40.mov

[DylanDylann]

@mollfpr @pecanoro This looks a bit unusual to me, since there are two internal engineers assigned to this job. Is it causing redundant pings to one of you?

[mollfpr]

All yours @pecanoro!

[mollfpr]

@mollfpr @pecanoro This looks a bit unusual to me, since there are two internal engineers assigned to this job. Is it causing redundant pings to one of you?

Yeah, that's expected here. When two internal engineers are assigned, it just means both need to review before this can merge. No redundant pings, we're both actually reviewing it 🙂

[DylanDylann]

What I mean is that having two engineers assigned to the linked issue looks like a mistake. From my check, Mollfpr reviewed PR-1, and Pecanoro reviewed PR-2 (this appears to be a mistake by Melvin, since Mollfpr should have reviewed this PR). Then Pecanoro self-assigned to the issue, meaning all subsequent PRs now require both of you as reviewers, even though we only need one reviewer per PR

Please disregard this if everything is fine with you 😄

[pecanoro]

@DylanDylann Don't worry about it! 😄

[github-actions]

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

[OSBotify]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #100450.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-8d18287-9b6d912-b754c7694e3f483e3e2fa37642871e62bf70542d/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-8d18287-9b6d912-d60230030923073f6412fd51a11ab7c47372043f/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://100450.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 9.4.82-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

No help site changes are required for this PR, so I did not create a docs PR.

This is a behavior-neutral refactor for Remove all remaining Onyx.connect() calls. It replaces the module-level session read in canFlagReportAction with an explicit currentUserAccountID parameter. No feature, rule, label, or user-facing copy changed.

What I checked

The diff (4 files):

• src/libs/ReportUtils.ts:10544 — canFlagReportAction now requires currentUserAccountID instead of falling back to deprecatedCurrentUserAccountID. The value is the same signed-in account, so the own-message, Concierge, whisper, deleted, archived, and write-permission rules all evaluate identically.
• src/pages/DynamicFlagCommentPage.tsx:56 — passes the account from useCurrentUserPersonalDetails().
• src/pages/inbox/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.tsx:1541 — currentUserAccountID was already a required member of the context menu params, so shouldShow reads a value it already had.
• tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts — updated call sites plus added coverage. Tests only.

The help site: the only article covering this flow is Chat Features and Moderation Tools (published page). Its Flag a Chat Message section describes hovering a message, opening the menu, choosing Flag as offensive, and picking a severity. Every one of those steps still holds after this PR, so there is nothing to update.

Since there is no docs PR to link, there is nothing for you to review on the help site side. If you would still like an article refresh — for example, spelling out that you can't flag your own messages or Concierge messages, which the article doesn't currently mention — reply and I'll open the draft PR.

---

view run

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 9.4.86-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required — so I did not create a draft docs PR.

This PR is an internal refactor. It removes the module-level Onyx.connect() subscription to ONYXKEYS.SESSION and instead threads currentUserAccountID in as a parameter to canFlagReportAction and shouldShowFlagComment. The rules that decide when Flag as offensive appears are unchanged, so nothing users read on the help site changes.

How I confirmed this

The user-facing rules are identical. Before, the account ID came from the deprecated session subscription when the argument was omitted. Now every caller supplies it:

• src/pages/inbox/report/ContextMenu/ContextMenuActions.tsx:1543 — takes currentUserAccountID from the existing context-menu props, which are already populated from currentUserPersonalDetails.accountID.
• src/pages/DynamicFlagCommentPage.tsx:124 and :154 — take it from useCurrentUserPersonalDetails().

Those are the only two callers in src/. The remaining changes are the new required isReportArchived parameter on shouldShowFlagComment (previously defaulted to false, and both callers already pass it) and 368 lines of added unit tests.

The relevant article is already accurate. docs/articles/new-expensify/chat/Chat-Features-and-Moderation-Tools.md documents the flow under Flag a Chat Message: hover the message, click the 3-dot menu > Flag as offensive, choose a reason. That still matches the behavior after this PR. No label, menu location, or eligibility rule moved.

The article never documented the edge cases this PR adds test coverage for (whispers, thread parent actions, admins-only rooms, auditor permissions), and it shouldn't — those are internal conditions, not steps a customer follows.

Since there is no docs PR to review, there is nothing for you to mark Ready for review here. If you would rather I still open a docs PR — for example to expand the Flag a Chat Message section with the conditions under which Flag as offensive is hidden (your own messages and Concierge messages, per your test steps) — reply with @MelvinBot and I'll draft it.

---

view run

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/pecanoro in version: 9.4.89-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Still no help site changes required — no draft docs PR created.

Nothing has changed since my earlier review: the PR is merged with the same four files, and it is a behavior-neutral refactor. It swaps the module-level Onyx.connect() read of ONYXKEYS.SESSION for an explicit currentUserAccountID parameter on canFlagReportAction and shouldShowFlagComment. Both callers pass the same account ID the subscription used to supply, so the rules for when Flag as offensive appears are identical.

Chat-Features-and-Moderation-Tools.md already documents the flow correctly under Flag a Chat Message, and nothing in this PR moves a label, a menu location, or an eligibility rule.

There is no docs PR to mark Ready for review. If you would still like one — for example to add that Flag as offensive is hidden on your own messages and on Concierge messages, per your test steps — reply with @MelvinBot draft that docs update and I'll open it.

---

view run

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.4.89-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android