Fix - After refresh on scan expense creation flow saving description directs to create expense page

[FitseTLT]

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #65002
PROPOSAL: #65002 (comment)

Tests

Precondition: Can only be tested on web

1. Tap fab - create expense - scan
2. Tap description
3. Refresh the page
4. Verify you are redirected to scan step page.
5. Similar behavior applies to other field pages like category, tag, tax, etc.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

Same as above

• 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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 verified the translation was requested/reviewed 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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.js 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(themeColors.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 form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label 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

2025-07-31.00-20-55.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

2025-07-30.23-18-48.mp4

iOS: Native

2025-07-31.18-15-34.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

2025-07-30.23-19-35.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

2025-07-30.23-16-53.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

2025-07-30.23-17-13.mp4

[melvin-bot]

@parasharrajat 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]

[parasharrajat]

@FitseTLT Thanks for waiting. Can you please resolve conflicts?

[FitseTLT]

@parasharrajat Resolved

[FitseTLT]

@parasharrajat Can you pls review here? Thx

[parasharrajat]

Sure. I might be able to do that by tomorrow.

[FitseTLT]

Another bump here

[parasharrajat]

Thanks for the bump. I will continue here today.

[parasharrajat]

Seeing some differences between staging and this branch. But I am just wondering whether we should take the user to the receipt or not as user can add the receipt from confirm page as well.

[parasharrajat]

Difference: Confirm page does not rediect to receipt page.

Steps:

1. Create a expense.
2. Add manual amount.
3. Go to confirm page.
4. Add a receipt on confirm page.
5. refresh the page.

[parasharrajat]

Difference: Confirm page does not rediect to receipt page.

Steps:

1. Create a expense.
2. Add manual amount.
3. Go to confirm page.
4. Add a receipt on confirm page.
5. Go to description page.
6. Refresh the page.
7. Save or back arrow on the description page.
8. App does not take to receipt page as it does on staging.

[FitseTLT]

Difference: Confirm page does not rediect to receipt page.

Steps:

1. Create a expense.
2. Add manual amount.
3. Go to confirm page.
4. Add a receipt on confirm page.
5. Go to description page.
6. Refresh the page.
7. Save or back arrow on the description page.
8. App does not take to receipt page as it does on staging.

I did notice this @parasharrajat but the pages we handled in this pr and confirmation page are different. Let say the user refreshed on description page for a manual expense with receipt. Because the user was setting the description and it is a manual expense I don't see a reason why we wouldn't let him finish setting description. But after they set the description because we navigate them to confirmation page they can see that the receipt no more exists then they can upload it again. That was my thought. WDYT

[FitseTLT]

bump on the above @parasharrajat

[parasharrajat]

Ok, then wouldn't the case apply to other pages we are dealing with, like scan receipt? There, the user will see the confirmation page again, and they can attach it.

[FitseTLT]

Ok, then wouldn't the case apply to other pages we are dealing with, like scan receipt? There, the user will see the confirmation page again, and they can attach it.

@parasharrajat I am not understanding what you meant here.

[FitseTLT]

@parasharrajat on the ^

[FitseTLT]

@parasharrajat Can you pls explain your question above? This pr is stuck for very long time/

[parasharrajat]

I will check it shortly or tomorrow. Let's try to get this settled by Monday.

[parasharrajat]

I was trying to say that when a user scans a receipt, they will eventually be taken to the confirmation page, even aftera refresh, so they can add the receipt on the confirmation page, but in this case, we ask for the receipt on refresh.

Now, let's say the user added a receipt after selecting manual expense, they are still attaching a receipt like the scan receipt step. I don't see any difference between both manual/scan receipt as here user attached receipt. So shouldn't we do the same on refresh?

[FitseTLT]

I was trying to say that when a user scans a receipt, they will eventually be taken to the confirmation page, even aftera refresh, so they can add the receipt on the confirmation page, but in this case, we ask for the receipt on refresh.

Now, let's say the user added a receipt after selecting manual expense, they are still attaching a receipt like the scan receipt step. I don't see any difference between both manual/scan receipt as here user attached receipt. So shouldn't we do the same on refresh?

No, @parasharrajat There is a difference between a receipt request and a manual request with receipt. Here is a code from main

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx

Lines 451 to 456 in c309629

	if (requestType === CONST.IOU.REQUEST_TYPE.MANUAL) {
	Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_SCAN.getRoute(CONST.IOU.ACTION.CREATE, iouType, initialTransactionID, reportID, Navigation.getActiveRouteWithoutParams()));
	return;
	}
	removeDraftTransactions(true);
	navigateToStartMoneyRequestStep(requestType, iouType, initialTransactionID, reportID);

if it is a receipt request we remove the draft transaction to clear all data and restart the flow because receipt request gets important data like amount scanned from the receipt and with the receipt data lost we reset the flow. But for the manual request, the receipt is supporting data so the request will not be reset. I am following the same logic from main here too.

Here is how it behaves on main:

2025-09-23.16-56-14.mp4

[FitseTLT]

Bump on the ^ @parasharrajat

[parasharrajat]

Looking...

Edit: Ok, I agree. Thanks for the clarification.

[parasharrajat]

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

08.10.2025_13.34.04_REC.mp4

🔲 iOS / Safari

08.10.2025_13.16.42_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Desktop

08.10.2025_13.20.31_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

08.10.2025_13.10.34_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / Chrome

08.10.2025_13.27.12_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / native

08.10.2025_13.24.18_REC.mp4

[parasharrajat]

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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 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)
• 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.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• 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 form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label 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.
• 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.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[parasharrajat]

@FitseTLT can you please resolve conflicts?

[FitseTLT]

Resolved

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/hooks/useRestartOnReceiptFailure.ts	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepTag.tsx	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[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.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Valforte in version: 9.2.29-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.2.29-5 🚀

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