[Payment due @daledah] Add reasonCode parameter to (some) ResendValidateCode calls

[chuckdries]

Explanation of Change

Magic code emails currently show a generic line "This code was requested because someone is trying to log in to your account or access a secure feature". The goal is to show the reason the code was requested (with instance-specific data where applicable) and to omit the sign-in button when the request isn't a login.

To do that, the backend needs to know why a magic code was requested. This PR plumbs a reasonCode (and, where required, supporting params like reasonCardID) from each App call site that triggers a magic code, through resendValidateCode / requestValidateCodeAction, into the RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE / REQUEST_NEW_VALIDATE_CODE API commands. The backend uses the reasonCode to build the per-reason email copy and show or hide the signin button

Reason codes covered in this PR:

reasonCode	Resulting email copy	Sign-in button	Call sites
sign_in	"Sign in to your Expensify account"	shown	ChooseSSOOrMagicCode, BaseValidateCodeForm
validate_account	"Verify that this contact method can be used to reach you"	hidden	VerifyAccountPageBase (see note — fans out to ~15 account-level gates), BaseOnboardingPrivateDomain
add_contact_method	"Add a new contact method to your account"	hidden	NewContactMethodConfirmMagicCodePage
reveal_card_details (+ reasonCardID)	"Reveal details for your Expensify card ending in NNNN" or "Reveal your Travel CVV"	hidden	ExpensifyCardVerifyAccountPage, TravelCVVVerifyAccountPage
null (explicitly passed)	generic fallback ("...log in to your account or access a secure feature")	hidden	BaseOnboardingWorkEmailValidation, WorkspaceVerifyWorkAccountPage, WorkspaceExpensifyCardVerifyWorkAccountPage (all work-email account merge — not yet implemented)
none (requestValidateCodeAction() with no args)	generic fallback (same as above)	hidden	ConfirmDelegateMagicCodePage, UpdateDelegateMagicCodePage, PrivatePersonalDetailsConfirmMagicCodePage, SetDefaultContactMethodConfirmMagicCodePage, ReportVirtualCardFraudVerifyAccountPage, ReportCardLostConfirmMagicCodePage, MissingPersonalDetailsMagicCodePage, IssueNewCardConfirmMagicCodePage, MultifactorAuthentication/ValidateCodePage, MultifactorAuthenticationMainContext

Type safety: ResendValidateCodeParams is a discriminated union. reveal_card_details requires a reasonCardID; the other reasons forbid extra params; null is a temporary escape hatch (ResendValidateCodeNotYetImplementedParams) for the one flow whose reason isn't modeled yet. This makes it a compile error to request a card-reveal code without a card ID.

Note

VerifyAccountPageBase coverage is broad. It exposes no sendValidateCode prop — the validate_account reason is set internally — so the single change there covers every account-level one-time validation gate that wraps it (~15 routes): add delegate/copilot, enable 2FA, company-card feed, bank account for wallet/reimbursements, invoicing bank account, workspace domain, international deposit country, travel access, create/confirm money request, report/expense-report/search actions, and enable wallet. Testing one of these wrappers exercises them all; the rest only need a spot check.

Note

This is intentionally not a complete migration of every magic-code call site. Auth/Web-E treat an empty/null reasonCode as legacy and fall back to the generic copy, so un-migrated callers are unaffected. A follow-up will cover the remaining reasons and then tighten reasonCode to required on the backend.

Known deferred gate: "Verify a newly added contact method" (ContactMethodDetailsPage) is a validate_account-semantics email that this PR leaves on the generic fallback. It calls requestContactMethodValidateCode, which writes the separate REQUEST_CONTACT_METHOD_VALIDATE_CODE command — a different command/param type than the RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE / REQUEST_NEW_VALIDATE_CODE paths this PR plumbs. Carrying a reason there requires plumbing that third command, deferred to the follow-up.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/623748
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. sign_in — login via magic code (resend)

1. Sign out. On the sign-in page, enter an email and continue to the magic code step.
2. On the magic code form, click Resend (BaseValidateCodeForm).
3. Verify the email reads "...someone is trying to: • Sign in to your Expensify account".
4. Verify the sign-in button is present at the bottom and the "Or just sign in below." line is shown.
5. Verify that the magic code is accepted.

2. sign_in — SSO "Use magic code"

1. Sign out. Enter an email on an SSO-enabled domain and continue.
2. On the "Choose SSO or magic code" screen, click Use magic code (ChooseSSOOrMagicCode).
3. Verify the email reads "...someone is trying to: • Sign in to your Expensify account".
4. Verify the sign-in button is present at the bottom and the "Or just sign in below." line is shown.
5. Verify that the magic code is accepted.

3. add_contact_method — add a new contact method

1. Settings > Profile > Contact methods > New contact method.
2. Verify the email you receive reads "...trying to: • Add a new contact method to your account".
3. Verify no sign-in button is rendered.
4. Verify that the magic code is accepted.

4. validate_account — validate the newly-added contact method

1. Continuing from step 5 of the test above, enter an email or phone number
2. Enter a new email/phone and continue to the magic code confirmation page
3. Verify the email you receive has the subject "Verify secondary email for Expensify" and looks different from all the other magic code emails
4. Verify that the magic code is accepted

5. reveal_card_details — virtual Expensify card

1. Settings > Wallet > a virtual Expensify card > press Reveal under Virtual card number.
2. Verify the email reads "...trying to: • Reveal details for your Expensify card ending in NNNN", where NNNN matches the last four of the card.
3. Verify no sign-in button is rendered.
4. Verify that the magic code is accepted.

6. reveal_card_details — Travel CVV

1. With a travel-invoicing card present, go to Wallet > Travel CVV
2. Verify the email reads "...trying to: • Reveal your Travel CVV".
3. Verify no sign-in button is rendered.
4. Verify that the magic code is accepted.

The four cases below all send validate_account. Each ends with the same three assertions:
(A) the email reads "...someone is trying to: • Verify that this contact method can be used to reach you"
(B) no sign-in button is rendered
(C) the magic code is accepted
All of these gates only fire for an account whose login is not yet validated — use a freshly created test account so the gate appears.

7. validate_account — account-level gate via VerifyAccountPageBase (represented by Enable 2FA)

Every account-level gate in the coverage note routes through VerifyAccountPageBase, so this one case represents all 15. 2FA is the easiest to reach.

1. Sign in as an unvalidated account.
2. Go to Settings > Security > Two-factor authentication.
3. Make sure that you are prompted for a magic code.
4. Assert (A) and (B) and (C).
5. Spot check (optional): repeat via one other wrapper — e.g. Settings > Security > Add copilot (settings/security/delegate/verify-account) and confirm identical copy, proving the shared path.

8. validate_account — onboarding private domain (BaseOnboardingPrivateDomain)

This page only renders during onboarding when the account is on a private domain that already has at least one accessible workspace, and of course if the account is unvalidated. That's tricky because if the domain is validated, App will challenge you for a magic code at signin time because your account is considered domainControlled. So you need a private domain that is not validated but you can actually receive emails to.

1. Ensure your test domain already has a workspace with at least one member on that domain.
2. Sign up / onboard a new account using a different email on that same private domain
3. Proceed through onboarding until the "private domain" validation step appears.
4. Assert (A) and (B) and (C).

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

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
• 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
    • 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

1 sign_in

reasonCode.test.sign_in.mp4

3 add_contact_method

reasonCode.test.add_contact_method.mp4

4 validate_account on newly added contact method

reasonCode.test.validate_account.new.contact.method.mp4

5 reveal_card_details virtual card

reasonCode.test.reveal_card_details.mp4

6 reveal_card_details Travel CVV

Note that in the dev environment we don't actually see a CVV because the travel setup scripts don't create a card in marqeta. The important thing is the magic code page dismissed rather than showing an error

reasonCode.test.reveal_card_details.travel.CVV.mp4

7 validate_account one-time feature gate (2fa enablement)

reasonCode.test.validate_account.one-time.gate.2fa.enable.mp4

8 validate_account private domain onboarding

reasonCode.test.validate_account.private.domain.mp4

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/API/types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...rdingPrivateDomain/BaseOnboardingPrivateDomain.tsx	50.00% <ø> (ø)
...ilValidation/BaseOnboardingWorkEmailValidation.tsx	95.23% <ø> (ø)
src/pages/signin/ChooseSSOOrMagicCode.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ce/companyCards/WorkspaceVerifyWorkAccountPage.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...rd/WorkspaceExpensifyCardVerifyWorkAccountPage.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
.../Contacts/NewContactMethodConfirmMagicCodePage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/pages/settings/VerifyAccountPageBase.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...pensifyCardPage/ExpensifyCardVerifyAccountPage.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...s/signin/ValidateCodeForm/BaseValidateCodeForm.tsx	70.37% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 3 more
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@daledah 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]

[daledah]

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 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
  • 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
  • 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 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

1 sign_in

3 add_contact_method

4 validate_account on newly added contact method

Screen.Recording.2026-07-13.at.10.42.52.mov

5 reveal_card_details virtual card

validate_account one-time feature gate (2fa enablement)

[daledah]

The changes LGTM and tested well

[daledah]

@chuckdries could you please merge main to resolve failing check?

[melvin-bot]

@inimaga 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]

[melvin-bot]

🎯 @daledah, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

A payment issue will be created for your review once this PR is deployed to production.
E/E issue linked to the PR - https://www.github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/623748.

If payment is not needed (e.g., regression PR review fix etc), react with 👎 to this comment to prevent the payment issue from being created.

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #90726.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-bdf92ed0ce3-3fececf-cf20453f4f8d49e391bade9488d84b8e9080c819/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-bdf92ed-3fececf-339c3c260792fc150a49b3004e21a2f5f2edcb36/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://90726.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/inimaga in version: 9.4.34-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Help site review: no changes required

This PR plumbs a reasonCode (and reasonCardID where needed) from App call sites through resendValidateCode / requestValidateCodeAction into the RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE / REQUEST_NEW_VALIDATE_CODE commands. The user-visible effect — per-reason copy in the magic-code email and showing/hiding the sign-in button — is produced backend-side when the email is composed. The App diff itself is API-parameter plumbing with no UI/product surface a help article documents.

I reviewed every help-site article under App/docs/articles that mentions magic codes:

• new-expensify/settings/Login-Troubleshooting.md
• expensify-classic/settings/Magic-Code-Access-Troubleshooting.md
• expensify-classic/settings/Email-Notifications.md, Contact-Methods.md, Merge-Accounts.md, Avoiding-common-scams.md (+ the New Expensify equivalents)
• new-expensify/settings/Two-Factor-Authentication.md, Update-Email-Address.md

These articles cover delivery/troubleshooting, resending, 2FA, contact methods, and scam guidance — not the body copy of the magic-code email or the presence/absence of a sign-in button inside it. Nothing in them describes the old generic line ("someone is trying to log in to your account or access a secure feature"), so none of them become inaccurate as a result of this change. There's no article documenting the reveal-card-details, add-contact-method, or account-validation email copy that this PR now differentiates.

Since the changed behavior lives in the emails (not in a documented in-product flow) and no existing article references that copy, there's nothing to update on the help site and I have not opened a draft docs PR.

@chuckdries — I did not create a linked help-site PR because no article documents the magic-code email copy this change affects. If you'd like a new article added (e.g. explaining the different magic-code request reasons users may see), let me know and I'll draft one.

[nlemma]

Deploy Blocker #96131 was identified to be related to this PR.

[IuliiaHerets]

Hi @chuckdries. QA team can't test step 8 validate_account — onboarding private domain (BaseOnboardingPrivateDomain).
Can it be checked internally?

cc @inimaga @flaviadefaria @daledah

[chuckdries]

Looks like I missed a spot in the Auth PR - there's a codepath in SetPersonalDetailsAndRevealExpensifyCard that doesn't pass the reasonCode even though it should. I'm going to revert this App PR to unblock deploy, but since the bug is in the backend and not the frontend, we should not consider this a regression for C+ payment purposes.

[IuliiaHerets]

@chuckdries so, no need to check this PR, right?

[chuckdries]

@IuliiaHerets correct. The functionality is being removed

[daledah]

@chuckdries, please ping me when we have the follow-up PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.34-14 🚀

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

[melvin-bot]

🤖 Payment issue created: #96238

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.34-14 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android