Repair the originating domain feed on NewDot company card reconnect

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

When a Chase (OAuth) company-card feed is set up at the domain level in Classic and surfaced into a NewDot workspace via "preferred workspace", clicking "Log in to your bank to fix it" does not repair the original domain feed. NewDot's reconnect flow always targets the synthetic workspace-policy domain (expensify-policy<policyID>.exfy), so the fresh credentials land on a separate workspace-scoped feed while the original domain feed and its cards stay broken (import fails with 438 "Could not obtain fresh credentials").

Root cause: getCompanyCardBankConnection always sends domainName: getDomainNameForPolicy(policyID), which unconditionally resolves to the synthetic policy domain — there is no path that identifies the real feed being repaired.

This PR passes the feed's originating domain account ID to the reconnect callback so the server can target the correct feed:

• getCompanyCardBankConnection now accepts the feed (a CompanyCardFeedWithDomainID, i.e. feedName#domainID). When a feed is present (repairing an existing feed, not adding a new one), it parses the domainID out of the feed key via splitCardFeedWithDomainID and adds it to the callback URL as a new domainAccountID param.
• Both BankConnection entry points (web and native) forward the existing feed prop into the URL builder.

When no feed is provided (the add-new-card flow), no domainAccountID is sent and the behavior is unchanged.

This is one half of a cross-repo fix and does not repair feeds on its own. The server must consume the new domainAccountID param to resolve the real domain and write credentials there. Companion PR: https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/54188

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/653959
PROPOSAL: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/653959#issuecomment-4847372405

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your change worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the offline tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".

• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...space/companyCards/BankConnection/index.native.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...es/workspace/companyCards/BankConnection/index.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ibs/actions/getCompanyCardBankConnection/index.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

[MelvinBot]

No code fix is needed — neither red check is a real problem with this PR's code.

Every code/CI check passes: typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, all 8 test shards, Storybook, knip, unused styles, React Compiler, both perf-test runs, and the developmentDebug build. Only two checks are red:

1. build (New Expensify Dev, DebugDevelopment, false) — flaky/infrastructure, not this PR.
Just re-run it ("Re-run failed jobs" on the run). I attempted to re-trigger it automatically but don't have permission to re-run workflows here.

Why it's unrelated

• This PR changes only 3 TypeScript files (getCompanyCardBankConnection/index.tsx plus the two BankConnection call sites) — a type-only addition of an optional feed param. That cannot affect the native iOS xcodebuild compile/link.
• The failed job logged a remote-cache miss (Remote cache failure error: NoSuchKey: The specified key does not exist.), forcing a full ~10min rebuild, then exited with a generic RockError: Failed to build the project.
• There are no compiler/linker errors in the log — no Command CompileC/SwiftCompile/Ld failed, no BUILD FAILED, no SyntaxError/Metro bundling error — only deprecation and ld search-path warnings.
• The sibling developmentDebug build and all JS checks (including typecheck, run locally too) pass.

2. PR Author Checklist / checklist — needs the human co-author, not code.
madmax330, this fails because the checklist items and the Tests / Offline tests / QA Steps sections in the PR description are still the // TODO placeholders. Fill those in and tick the boxes when you mark the PR ready for review. Per the Melvin guidelines these author/reviewer checklist checks are human-completed and not something I should push a fix for.

tl;dr: re-run the iOS build, complete the author checklist — no code change required.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 I analyzed all the checks. No code fix is needed — neither failure is caused by this PR's changes.

Two checks are red:

1. PR Author Checklist / checklist — This is the human-completed author checklist (the ### Tests / ### QA Steps boxes are still unchecked with // TODO placeholders). It's not a CI/code failure. It'll go green once the human co-author fills out the checklist before marking the PR ready for review.

2. build (New Expensify Dev, DebugDevelopment, false) — This is an unrelated native iOS build failure, not something this PR can cause. This PR only touches 3 TypeScript files (getCompanyCardBankConnection/index.tsx, BankConnection/index.tsx, BankConnection/index.native.tsx), and the build died during native Swift/xcodebuild compilation with infrastructure signals (Remote cache failure error: NoSuchKey, [Codegen] Could not find generated autolinking output). There's no JS bundling error, no reference to the changed files, and no Unable to resolve in the log. Per policy I don't push fixes for unrelated/flaky failures — this one just needs a re-run of the job.

Everything that could be affected by the code change is green: typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, Bun tests, all 8 test (Jest) shards, the other builds, and the perf tests. I also ran typecheck-tsgo locally on the branch and it passed with no errors.

Recommended next step: Re-run the failed build (New Expensify Dev, DebugDevelopment, false) job (run) — I couldn't trigger the re-run from here. Once that's green, only the author checklist will remain, which is yours to complete.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates the company card bank reconnect URL generation so that, when repairing an existing company-card feed, the reconnect flow can target the feed’s originating domain (via a domainAccountID query param) instead of always targeting the synthetic workspace-policy domain.

Changes:

• Extend getCompanyCardBankConnection() to accept an optional feed and, when present, derive and append domainAccountID to the OAuth callback URL.
• Forward the feed prop into the URL builder from both web and native BankConnection entry points.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
src/pages/workspace/companyCards/BankConnection/index.tsx	Passes feed into the company-card bank connection URL builder (web).
src/pages/workspace/companyCards/BankConnection/index.native.tsx	Passes feed into the company-card bank connection URL builder (native).
src/libs/actions/getCompanyCardBankConnection/index.tsx	Adds optional feed handling and appends domainAccountID to the callback URL when available.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 I looked into the failing checks. No code fix is needed — the only real failure is unrelated to this PR.

Failing checks:

• build (New Expensify Dev, DebugDevelopment, false) — flaky/infra, unrelated to this PR. Re-run it.
• PR Author Checklist / checklist (x2) — human checklist, not a CI/code failure. It goes green once the author checklist is completed.

Every code-quality check passed: typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, Bun tests, all 8 Jest shards, Storybook, knip, and the developmentDebug build are all green. I also ran typecheck-tsgo locally on the branch — no type errors.

Why the iOS build failure is unrelated

This PR changes only 3 TypeScript files under src/ — getCompanyCardBankConnection/index.tsx, BankConnection/index.tsx, and BankConnection/index.native.tsx. No native iOS code, Pods, or build config is touched.

The failed build ended with a generic RockError: Failed to build the project from xcodebuild — no Swift/ObjC/C++ compile error and no JS-bundling error (Unable to resolve module / SyntaxError) is present in the log. It also logged a Remote cache failure error: NoSuchKey. A TS-only change can only break this build via JS bundling, and there was no bundling error, so the failure is environmental. The parallel developmentDebug build passed.

To clear it, re-run the failed build job and complete the PR Author Checklist. If the re-run also fails with a real compile error, tag me again and I'll dig in.

[madmax330]

@MelvinBot can you merge main?

[madmax330]

@MelvinBot can you merge main?

[MelvinBot]

🤖 I looked into the failing checks — no code fix is needed. Here's the breakdown:

1. PR Author Checklist / PR Reviewer Checklist (checklist) — Expected. These stay red until a human fills in the Tests / QA / checklist sections and completes the review checklist. Not a code failure.

2. build (New Expensify Dev, DebugDevelopment, false) — flaky iOS build (unrelated to this PR)

This is an infrastructure flake, not a real failure:

• The job died with a generic RockError: Failed to build the project from xcodebuild, with no Swift/ObjC/JS compile diagnostic and no reference to any changed file — just the standard "run script build phase" warnings.
• This PR only touches 3 pure TypeScript files (getCompanyCardBankConnection/index.tsx, BankConnection/index.tsx, BankConnection/index.native.tsx). Nothing here affects native compilation.
• The JS that these builds bundle is identical across variants, and every other build passed — build (Debug, true), build (developmentDebug, false), and build (Expensify Dev, Debug, true) — along with typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, and all unit/Storybook tests. A real code problem would have failed those too.

Recommended action: Just re-run the failed iOS build job — it should pass on retry. I don't have Actions permission to re-run it myself (403 Resource not accessible), so a maintainer/assignee will need to click Re-run failed jobs on that run.

[melvin-bot]

@thelullabyy 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]

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No fix needed — the failing ESLint check was a transient false positive and has already cleared on re-run. All checks on this PR are now green.

Investigation details

• The originally-failing run was ESLint check job 86126620639 (6m41s).
• Pulling that job's log shows ESLint itself completed successfully (✔ Lint done.) with no reported violations — the failure was not an actual lint error in the diff.
• Running the exact CI command (npm run lint, i.e. scripts/lint.sh) locally against the branch produced no errors, and linting the three changed files was clean with no change to the eslint-seatbelt baseline.
• This matches the known stale-cache issue the lint workflow explicitly guards against — see the comment in .github/workflows/lint.yml: "ESLint's cache doesn't track cross-file TypeScript dependencies, which can cause stale errors. If lint fails, we clear the cache and retry to rule out false positives."
• The check has since re-run and passed (job 86130659542, 1m59s), confirming it was a cache-induced false positive rather than a real problem in this PR's changes.

Current status: ESLint check ✅, typecheck ✅, test (all 8 jobs) ✅, and every other required check is passing. Nothing to push. The only non-passing item is approveAndMerge (skipping), which is expected on an open PR.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No failing checks to fix — all checks on this PR are currently passing.

The only check that ever reported a failure was PR Author Checklist / checklist, and that was the initial run fired at PR creation (13:15:59) before the author checklist boxes were filled in. A re-run at 13:33:19 passed once the checklist was completed, superseding the earlier failure. Every other check (tests, typecheck, ESLint, Oxfmt, perf, builds, etc.) is green.

No push was needed.

[thelullabyy]

@fedirjh @madmax330 Please let me know if needing my review on this PR. Thanks

[madmax330]

@thelullabyy no need, thanks.

@fedirjh can you review please?

[fedirjh]

@madmax330 I think we need to fix it for plaid as well, This still creates duplicate feed

[madmax330]

@fedirjh we'll do Plaid as a follow up based on Melvin's analysis here: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/653959#issuecomment-4935721846

Since we need a separate Web-Expensify PR for it

[fedirjh]

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

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[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 #95214.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-c5e5546462b-3fececf-cf20453f4f8d49e391bade9488d84b8e9080c819/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-c5e5546-3fececf-339c3c260792fc150a49b3004e21a2f5f2edcb36/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://95214.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

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

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help articles under App/docs/articles, and no updates are needed.

Why: This is an internal plumbing fix. It changes how the reconnect flow builds the OAuth callback URL — passing the feed's originating domainAccountID so the server repairs the correct feed instead of the synthetic workspace-policy domain. There is:

• No new or changed user-facing UI (no new buttons, labels, tabs, or settings).
• No change to the documented steps a Workspace Admin takes to fix a broken feed.

The fix restores the intended behavior that the existing article already documents — that selecting the broken-connection error and following the prompts reconnects the feed and resumes importing transactions:

• Fix-a-Broken-Company-Card-Feed-Connection.md already covers reconnecting a broken company card feed, including feeds shared across workspaces.
• Share-a-Company-Card-Connection-Across-Workspaces.md covers the "preferred workspace" scenario this fix addresses.

Both articles describe the correct behavior after this fix, so no edits are warranted.

⚠️ Note: I could not verify this in a browser (web preview was unavailable in this run), so the assessment is based on static review of the diff and help articles.

@madmax330, no linked help site PR was created since no documentation changes are required. If you believe a specific article should be updated to reflect this change, let me know which one and I'll draft the update.

[IuliiaHerets]

Any QA steps here?

cc @madmax330 @mountiny @flaviadefaria @fedirjh

[fedirjh]

@IuliiaHerets Not sure if you can test it, can you follow the testing steps from OP https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/653959 ?

[IuliiaHerets]

@fedirjh I don't think soo

[OSBotify]

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

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

[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