Migrate test drive modal to centered modal layout

[jmusial]

Explanation of Change

This PR it migrates modals from TestDriveModal to not use Modal component.

Depends on #93437

Fixed Issues

$ #90475
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Note:
version of modal showing can be manipulated by typing in console:

Onyx.merge('nvp_introSelected', { choice: 'employer' });

or

Onyx.merge('nvp_introSelected', { choice: 'newDotManageTeam' });

For web:

1. Navigate to /onboarding/test-drive

For native

1. add

                Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.TEST_DRIVE_MODAL_ROOT.getRoute());
                return;

in src/hooks/useOnboardingFlow.ts#69

For both
2. Verify that modal shows
3. Verify that user can dismiss or watch the video from here

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

• 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 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 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)
• 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.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.11.30.54.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.11.31.25.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.11.38.37.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.12.11.18.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-19.at.11.04.22.mov

[codecov]

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
...components/TestDrive/Modal/AdminTestDriveModal.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/Navigation/AppNavigator/AuthScreens.tsx	82.79% <ø> (ø)
...tion/AppNavigator/useRootNavigatorScreenOptions.ts	93.33% <100.00%> (+0.74%)	⬆️
src/components/FeatureTrainingModal.tsx	86.66% <83.33%> (-4.81%)	⬇️
...ppNavigator/Navigators/TestDriveModalNavigator.tsx	12.50% <0.00%> (-4.17%)	⬇️
...ardAvoidingView/BaseKeyboardAvoidingView/index.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/components/FeatureTrainingContent.tsx	93.33% <93.33%> (ø)
...gator/Navigators/FeatureTrainingModalNavigator.tsx	10.00% <0.00%> (-2.50%)	⬇️
src/styles/index.ts	58.58% <14.28%> (-1.84%)	⬇️
.../components/TestDrive/Modal/BaseTestDriveModal.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 5 more
... and 147 files with indirect coverage changes

[jmusial]

@mountiny could you run a web ad hoc here please ? EDIT: nvm, found the solution I was looking for

[jmusial]

@trjExpensify is Test Drive Modal still a used ? I cannot find a flow that would navigate to it in the code

[mountiny]

Actually I think its not used anymore

[trjExpensify]

Does clicking on a Test drive onboarding task launch it or something?

[jmusial]

Does clicking on a Test drive onboarding task launch it or something?

Haven't onboarding checklist got replaced by Concierge?
As far as I can see in the code the test drive demo Iframe (pic) is being used in couple places but no sign of test drive modal.

Also found Remove TestDrive from sign-up flow, so I guess it's safe to remove it ?

[mountiny]

@jmusial The tasks are still A/B tested so some accounts might possibly get the tasks, maybe, perhaps

[jmusial]

@jmusial The tasks are still A/B tested so some accounts might possibly get the tasks, maybe, perhaps

I mean in the codebase there is no programmatic navigation to TestDriveModal except src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx#598 but this one looks like:

        // If the user came from Test Drive modal, we need to take him back there
        if (transaction?.receipt?.isTestDriveReceipt && (transaction.participants?.length ?? 0) > 0) {
            Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.TEST_DRIVE_MODAL_ROOT.getRoute(transaction.participants?.at(0)?.login));
            return;
        }

So I have a feeling it's a dead code ?

[mountiny]

I agree

[jmusial]

It has been resolved via #94322