Fix thinking indicator flash when agent reply lands before NVP clear by marcaaron · Pull Request #93648 · Expensify/App

marcaaron · 2026-06-16T00:28:22Z

Explanation of Change

Reorders two operations in ProcessAgentZeroRequest.php so the agent's reply is sent before the thinking indicator is cleared.

Previously: the backend cleared the thinking indicator NVP first, then sent the reply via processAgentZeroAddedComments. Since Auth dispatches a separate Pusher event for each operation, the indicator could vanish on the client before the reply arrived — depending on Pusher delivery timing.

After this change: the reply is sent first, then the indicator is cleared. The indicator now disappears at or after the reply arrives.

Fixes

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/648410

Tests

[PR Author] I made sure this PR correctly handles default values (SO)

_tests/integration/script/bwm/ProcessAgentZeroRequestTest.php — 58/59 pass (one pre-existing failure unrelated to this change).

Web QA

Prerequisites: Use a workspace that has a custom agent configured.

Scenario 1: Indicator clears at or after the reply

Open a chat with a custom agent on staging.
Send a message that triggers an agent response.
Watch the "thinking" indicator while waiting for the reply.
Verify that the thinking indicator disappears at the same time as the reply appears, not before it.
Verify there is no visible blank gap between the indicator disappearing and the reply showing up.

Mobile QA

No mobile QA — the thinking indicator lives in NewDot (React Native) and the fix is backend-only. Mobile behavior is covered under Web QA above since it shares the same Pusher events.

PR Author Checklist

The server clears the agentZeroProcessingRequestIndicator NVP separately from the reply Pusher event, arriving ~250ms later on the client. During that window the thinking bubble remains visible even though the reply is already rendered. Suppress any agent from candidateAgentIDs as soon as their ADDCOMMENT is the newest action in the report, so the bubble hides the moment the reply lands rather than waiting for the NVP clear.

codecov · 2026-06-16T00:33:06Z

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/pages/inbox/AgentZeroStatusContext.tsx	`92.85% <88.88%> (-0.76%)`	⬇️
... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

marcaaron · 2026-06-16T23:16:20Z

@codex review

melvin-bot · 2026-06-16T23:18:28Z

@neil-marcellini 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]

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6fc1311f3b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

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

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

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

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

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-06-16T23:29:25Z

+    if (latestReplyActorID !== undefined) {
+        candidateIDs.delete(latestReplyActorID);


Wait for the NVP clear before dropping agent bubbles

When an agent-authored ADDCOMMENT arrives while agentZeroProcessingRequestIndicator is still truthy, this removes that agent from candidateAgentIDs before ConciergeThinkingBubble can render. The per-agent hook explicitly treats this scenario as an intermediate/status action and keeps the indicator until the server clears the NVP; bypassing it here makes the thinking bubble disappear mid-processing even though serverAgentIDs still says the agent is active.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

I'm not sure what fix is being proposed here... what we have now is pretty bad because a "thinking" indicator appears very briefly and then disappears. It seems like it would be better for some kind of "mid-processing thinking indicator" to not show up at all than to have a buggy flash happen.

trjExpensify

Nice 👍

neil-marcellini

Looks good

neil-marcellini · 2026-06-22T21:09:56Z

Simple PR, no C+ needed.

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

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

github-actions · 2026-06-22T21:20:40Z

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

github-actions · 2026-06-22T21:26:25Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #93648.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-315bf862e74-6237ac6-b80e6c8bd7fd068af06713b95319ceaa88e8764e/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-315bf86-6237ac6-8080e859833f5e1c4f1d36f8cd35022984d178ff/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://93648.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-06-22T21:49:01Z

✋ 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 · 2026-06-22T23:27:38Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/neil-marcellini in version: 9.4.17-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-06-22T23:29:27Z

🤖 Help site review — no changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against Expensify's help site files under App/docs/articles.

Conclusion: No help site updates are needed, so I did not create a draft PR.

Why: This is a pure frontend timing fix in src/pages/inbox/AgentZeroStatusContext.tsx. It suppresses a brief "thinking" indicator flash by dropping an agent from the candidate set as soon as its reply (ADDCOMMENT) becomes the newest action, instead of waiting for the server's indicator-clear NVP. There is:

No new feature, setting, tab, or button
No change to any user-facing label or copy
No change to a documented workflow — only the visual timing of an existing indicator

The only related help articles are under App/docs/articles/new-expensify/ai-agents/ (Create-Agent-Rules.md, How-to-Write-Agent-Rules.md), which document how Workspace Admins write Agent Rules / RuleBot automations. Neither describes the chat "thinking" indicator or its timing, so nothing there is affected by this change.

@marcaaron, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review — note that no help site PR was created here because no documentation changes were warranted. If you believe a user-facing doc should describe this behavior, let me know and I'll draft one.

OSBotify · 2026-06-23T21:59:52Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.4.17-3 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-06-23T23:38:22Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.4.17-3 🚀

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

marcaaron self-assigned this Jun 16, 2026

marcaaron marked this pull request as ready for review June 16, 2026 23:17

marcaaron requested review from a team as code owners June 16, 2026 23:17

melvin-bot Bot requested review from neil-marcellini and removed request for a team June 16, 2026 23:18

melvin-bot Bot requested review from trjExpensify and removed request for a team June 16, 2026 23:20

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

trjExpensify approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

neil-marcellini approved these changes Jun 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

neil-marcellini merged commit 315bf86 into main Jun 22, 2026
43 of 46 checks passed

neil-marcellini deleted the marcaaron-fix-agent-thinking-indicator-flash branch June 22, 2026 21:12

This was referenced Jun 22, 2026

Investigate workflow job failing on main: test / test (job 6) #94215

Closed

Investigate workflow job failing on main: test / test (job 2) #94216

Closed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jun 22, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-06-22 #94222

Closed

quinthar added the #ai label Aug 11, 2026

		if (latestReplyActorID !== undefined) {
		candidateIDs.delete(latestReplyActorID);

Uh oh!

Conversation

marcaaron commented Jun 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixes

Tests

Web QA

Mobile QA

PR Author Checklist

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 16, 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!

marcaaron commented Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jun 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marcaaron Jun 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini commented Jun 22, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

marcaaron commented Jun 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jun 16, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading