[Performance] Fix dismiss-only spans retaining stale report IDs on Search

[JakubKorytko]

Explanation of Change

Fixes a submit-to-destination-visible span failure identified from a Sentry trace on Android.

Dismiss-only span waits for report (trace 5bee564c, Android, ~28.3s): The dismiss_modal handler stores DISMISS_MODAL_ONLY with a destination report ID even when returning to Search. Fix: setDismissOnlyPendingActionForCurrentRoute omits the report ID when Search is the topmost fullscreen route, so the span ends on Search return instead of waiting for the user to manually open the destination report.

Fixed Issues

$ #93724
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Note: Not currently reproducible with a verified UI flow. The tested UI flows route through search_dismiss and the span ends normally. This issue requires fast_path_handler: dismiss_modal while Search is already the topmost fullscreen route and a destination report ID is present.

1. Use a narrow layout
2. Open Spend > Reports
3. Apply filters (e.g. from:... to:...)
4. From search results, tap a FAB to start creating an expense
5. Switch to manual tab if landed on scan, then submit
6. After submit, verify you return to Spend Search and the ManualSubmitToDestinationVisible span ends on the Search return
7. Verify the span does NOT wait for the user to manually open the destination report

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests.

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

Reports_Filters_Android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

Reports_filters_iOS.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[JakubKorytko]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉

Reviewed commit: 10b3122df5

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".

[melvin-bot]

@aimane-chnaif 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]

[JmillsExpensify]

LGTM

[aimane-chnaif]

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.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

[MelvinBot]

Regression review

Found one regression (high confidence): on narrow layout, when Search is the topmost full-screen route, this change makes the submit-to-destination-visible span get cancelled instead of completing — so the very flow this PR targets loses its telemetry entirely.

Why it happens

The new setDismissOnlyPendingActionForCurrentRoute is called first at submitDismissStrategies.ts:43, before dismissModalWithReport runs. When Search is topmost it sets the pending action to DISMISS_MODAL_ONLY with no reportID.

Then dismissModalWithReport runs synchronously and calls onBeforeNavigate(willOpenReport). Crucially, when Search is topmost, willOpenReport is always true:

• willOpenReport=false requires isReportTopmostSplitNavigator() (Navigation.ts:869-871).
• isReportTopmostSplitNavigator() and isSearchTopmostFullScreenRoute() are mutually exclusive — both read getTopmostFullScreenRoute() and check a different navigator name.
• So Search-topmost ⟹ not reports-split ⟹ willOpenReport=true ⟹ the willOpenReport branch at L46-48 fires: setPendingSubmitFollowUpAction(DISMISS_MODAL_AND_OPEN_REPORT, reportID).

Now the refinement check breaks. isSameFlowUpdate bails on its first line because the reportIDs differ (undefined vs report-1):

if (pending.reportID !== reportID) {  // undefined !== 'report-1' → true
    return false;                      // NOT same-flow
}

Because it's treated as a different flow, setPendingSubmitFollowUpAction falls into the conflict branch and calls cancelSpan. The span is gone, and the later endSubmitFollowUpActionSpan(DISMISS_MODAL_AND_OPEN_REPORT, reportID) from the report screen is a no-op.

Before this PR, L43 set DISMISS_MODAL_ONLY with reportID, so the DISMISS_MODAL_ONLY → DISMISS_MODAL_AND_OPEN_REPORT refinement (same reportID) was recognized as same-flow and the span completed correctly.

Why the tests don't catch it & the targeted path is likely unreachable

• The unit tests mock setPendingSubmitFollowUpAction entirely, so they never exercise the real isSameFlowUpdate/cancelSpan logic — they only assert call args. The cancel happens inside the real module.
• The new test clears reportID for dismiss-only Search returns drives onBeforeNavigate(false) with Search topmost. But per the analysis above, the real Navigation.dismissModalWithReport never calls onBeforeNavigate(false) when Search is topmost — it calls (true). So the test validates a state combination that can't occur in production and misses the real willOpenReport=true path.
• Net effect: the L51 omit branch (intended fix) is effectively unreachable when Search is topmost, while the L43 change reliably cancels the span on that exact flow.

Suggested fix

Either keep passing reportID at L43 (revert that call to the original) and only omit it in the onBeforeNavigate(false) branch, or make isSameFlowUpdate treat a DISMISS_MODAL_ONLY{reportID: undefined} → DISMISS_MODAL_AND_OPEN_REPORT{reportID} transition as a refinement rather than a new flow. Also worth confirming with a real (un-mocked) integration test that the span actually ends (not just that setPending was called with the right args).

---

This is automated review feedback — please verify against the actual production navigation state before acting. Reply with @MelvinBot <feedback> to refine.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Breezy!

Reviewed commit: f5999b42d7

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".

[aimane-chnaif]

I think this analysis makes sense.

[JakubKorytko]

I think #93716 (comment) makes sense.

I think the underlying concern makes sense, but the exact path described shouldn’t happen in practice: Search-topmost submit dismisses already take the plain dismissOnly() path before dismissModalWithReport() gets involved.

I tightened the code so that contract is explicit in executeDismissModalStrategy() too. Search-topmost now always uses dismissOnly() without a reportID, while report-dismiss flows keep the reportID consistently so the later DISMISS_MODAL_AND_OPEN_REPORT refinement does not look like a separate flow and cancel the span.
Also updated the test to cover that reachable behavior instead of manually forcing the onBeforeNavigate(false) callback state.

[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]

🚧 @mountiny 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 #93716.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-74e9b1c8041-9980e46-d697f71b0a8447f170bab080e11b866f0b2983c6/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-74e9b1c-9980e46-3695adeec9e32685fe53ad159c5f24d5e7d5b2cc/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://93716.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

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

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

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

This PR is an internal telemetry/performance fix. It changes how the submit-to-destination-visible Sentry span is tracked by adjusting the dismiss-modal strategy so a stale destination report ID isn't retained when Search is the topmost full-screen route (submitDismissStrategies.ts), plus a corresponding unit test.

The change is entirely under the hood:

• No user-facing feature, workflow, or behavior change
• No UI labels, tabs, settings, or button copy added or modified
• No new or changed strings in src/languages/*

Help site articles document user-facing product behavior, and nothing in this PR alters that. Therefore no draft PR for documentation was created, and there is no linked help site PR to review.

If you believe a specific user-facing behavior changed that should be documented, let me know which flow and I'll take another look.

[OSBotify]

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

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

[OSBotify]

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

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