[Payment due @daledah] Bring back validateCode reasonCode by chuckdries · Pull Request #96224 · Expensify/App

chuckdries · 2026-07-15T21:49:14Z

Revert #96134, thus un-reverting #90726. It's the same exact changeset as before, but the backend handling is fixed for the reveal card details case. The original PR description is reproduced below.

Explanation of Change

Magic code emails currently show a generic line "This code was requested because someone is trying to log in to your account or access a secure feature". The goal is to show the reason the code was requested (with instance-specific data where applicable) and to omit the sign-in button when the request isn't a login.

To do that, the backend needs to know why a magic code was requested. This PR plumbs a reasonCode (and, where required, supporting params like reasonCardID) from each App call site that triggers a magic code, through resendValidateCode / requestValidateCodeAction, into the RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE / REQUEST_NEW_VALIDATE_CODE API commands. The backend uses the reasonCode to build the per-reason email copy and show or hide the signin button

Reason codes covered in this PR:

`reasonCode`	Resulting email copy	Sign-in button	Call sites
`sign_in`	"Sign in to your Expensify account"	shown	`ChooseSSOOrMagicCode`, `BaseValidateCodeForm`
`validate_account`	"Verify that this contact method can be used to reach you"	hidden	`VerifyAccountPageBase` (see note — fans out to ~15 account-level gates), `BaseOnboardingPrivateDomain`
`add_contact_method`	"Add a new contact method to your account"	hidden	`NewContactMethodConfirmMagicCodePage`
`reveal_card_details` (+ `reasonCardID`)	"Reveal details for your Expensify card ending in NNNN" or "Reveal your Travel CVV"	hidden	`ExpensifyCardVerifyAccountPage`, `TravelCVVVerifyAccountPage`
`null` (explicitly passed)	generic fallback ("...log in to your account or access a secure feature")	hidden	`BaseOnboardingWorkEmailValidation`, `WorkspaceVerifyWorkAccountPage`, `WorkspaceExpensifyCardVerifyWorkAccountPage` (all work-email account merge — not yet implemented)
none (`requestValidateCodeAction()` with no args)	generic fallback (same as above)	hidden	`ConfirmDelegateMagicCodePage`, `UpdateDelegateMagicCodePage`, `PrivatePersonalDetailsConfirmMagicCodePage`, `SetDefaultContactMethodConfirmMagicCodePage`, `ReportVirtualCardFraudVerifyAccountPage`, `ReportCardLostConfirmMagicCodePage`, `MissingPersonalDetailsMagicCodePage`, `IssueNewCardConfirmMagicCodePage`, `MultifactorAuthentication/ValidateCodePage`, `MultifactorAuthenticationMainContext`

Type safety: ResendValidateCodeParams is a discriminated union. reveal_card_details requires a reasonCardID; the other reasons forbid extra params; null is a temporary escape hatch (ResendValidateCodeNotYetImplementedParams) for the one flow whose reason isn't modeled yet. This makes it a compile error to request a card-reveal code without a card ID.

Note

VerifyAccountPageBase coverage is broad. It exposes no sendValidateCode prop — the validate_account reason is set internally — so the single change there covers every account-level one-time validation gate that wraps it (~15 routes): add delegate/copilot, enable 2FA, company-card feed, bank account for wallet/reimbursements, invoicing bank account, workspace domain, international deposit country, travel access, create/confirm money request, report/expense-report/search actions, and enable wallet. Testing one of these wrappers exercises them all; the rest only need a spot check.

Note

This is intentionally not a complete migration of every magic-code call site. Auth/Web-E treat an empty/null reasonCode as legacy and fall back to the generic copy, so un-migrated callers are unaffected. A follow-up will cover the remaining reasons and then tighten reasonCode to required on the backend.

Known deferred gate: "Verify a newly added contact method" (ContactMethodDetailsPage) is a validate_account-semantics email that this PR leaves on the generic fallback. It calls requestContactMethodValidateCode, which writes the separate REQUEST_CONTACT_METHOD_VALIDATE_CODE command — a different command/param type than the RESEND_VALIDATE_CODE / REQUEST_NEW_VALIDATE_CODE paths this PR plumbs. Carrying a reason there requires plumbing that third command, deferred to the follow-up.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/623748
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. sign_in — login via magic code (resend)

Sign out. On the sign-in page, enter an email and continue to the magic code step.
On the magic code form, click Resend (BaseValidateCodeForm).
Verify the email reads "...someone is trying to: • Sign in to your Expensify account".
Verify the sign-in button is present at the bottom and the "Or just sign in below." line is shown.
Verify that the magic code is accepted.

2. sign_in — SSO "Use magic code"

Sign out. Enter an email on an SSO-enabled domain and continue.
On the "Choose SSO or magic code" screen, click Use magic code (ChooseSSOOrMagicCode).
Verify the email reads "...someone is trying to: • Sign in to your Expensify account".
Verify the sign-in button is present at the bottom and the "Or just sign in below." line is shown.
Verify that the magic code is accepted.

3. add_contact_method — add a new contact method

Settings > Profile > Contact methods > New contact method.
Verify the email you receive reads "...trying to: • Add a new contact method to your account".
Verify no sign-in button is rendered.
Verify that the magic code is accepted.

4. validate_account — validate the newly-added contact method

Continuing from step 5 of the test above, enter an email or phone number
Enter a new email/phone and continue to the magic code confirmation page
Verify the email you receive has the subject "Verify secondary email for Expensify" and looks different from all the other magic code emails
Verify that the magic code is accepted

5. reveal_card_details — virtual Expensify card

Settings > Wallet > a virtual Expensify card > press Reveal under Virtual card number.
Verify the email reads "...trying to: • Reveal details for your Expensify card ending in NNNN", where NNNN matches the last four of the card.
Verify no sign-in button is rendered.
Verify that the magic code is accepted.

6. reveal_card_details — Travel CVV

With a travel-invoicing card present, go to Wallet > Travel CVV
Verify the email reads "...trying to: • Reveal your Travel CVV".
Verify no sign-in button is rendered.
Verify that the magic code is accepted.

The four cases below all send validate_account. Each ends with the same three assertions:
(A) the email reads "...someone is trying to: • Verify that this contact method can be used to reach you"
(B) no sign-in button is rendered
(C) the magic code is accepted
All of these gates only fire for an account whose login is not yet validated — use a freshly created test account so the gate appears.

7. validate_account — account-level gate via VerifyAccountPageBase (represented by Enable 2FA)

Every account-level gate in the coverage note routes through VerifyAccountPageBase, so this one case represents all 15. 2FA is the easiest to reach.

Sign in as an unvalidated account.
Go to Settings > Security > Two-factor authentication.
Make sure that you are prompted for a magic code.
Assert (A) and (B) and (C).
Spot check (optional): repeat via one other wrapper — e.g. Settings > Security > Add copilot (settings/security/delegate/verify-account) and confirm identical copy, proving the shared path.

8. validate_account — onboarding private domain (BaseOnboardingPrivateDomain)

This page only renders during onboarding when the account is on a private domain that already has at least one accessible workspace, and of course if the account is unvalidated. That's tricky because if the domain is validated, App will challenge you for a magic code at signin time because your account is considered domainControlled. So you need a private domain that is not validated but you can actually receive emails to.

Ensure your test domain already has a workspace with at least one member on that domain.
Sign up / onboard a new account using a different email on that same private domain
Proceed through onboarding until the "private domain" validation step appears.
Assert (A) and (B) and (C).

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

None

QA Steps

Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

All tests were re-performed today, 2026-07-15

1. Sign in

reasonCode.app.revert.1.sign.in.mp4

2. sign in on SSO enabled domain

reasonCode.app.revert.2.sso.sign.in.mp4

3. add contact method gate

reasonCode.app.revert.3.add_contact_method.mp4

4. validate newly added contact method

reasonCode.app.revert.4.validate_account.mp4

5. reveal card details

reasonCode.app.revert.5.reveal_card_details.mp4

6. reveal travel CVV

Note that this one isn't really testable in dev, but it's enough to check the notification in the db and that the form doesn't immediately reject the validate code

reasonCode.app.revert.6.travel.cvv.mp4

7. unverified account validation gate

reasonCode.app.revert.7.validation.gate.mp4

8. private domain onboarding

reasonCode.app.revert.8.private.domain.onboarding.mp4

…ies/validateCode-reasonCode" This reverts commit b23a0ba, reversing changes made to 0032e48.

codecov · 2026-07-15T21:53:46Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/API/types.ts	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
...rdingPrivateDomain/BaseOnboardingPrivateDomain.tsx	`50.00% <ø> (ø)`
...ilValidation/BaseOnboardingWorkEmailValidation.tsx	`95.23% <ø> (ø)`
src/pages/signin/ChooseSSOOrMagicCode.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
...ce/companyCards/WorkspaceVerifyWorkAccountPage.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
...rd/WorkspaceExpensifyCardVerifyWorkAccountPage.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
.../Contacts/NewContactMethodConfirmMagicCodePage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
src/pages/settings/VerifyAccountPageBase.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...pensifyCardPage/ExpensifyCardVerifyAccountPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
...s/signin/ValidateCodeForm/BaseValidateCodeForm.tsx	`70.37% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 3 more
... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-07-15T22:51:19Z

@ZhenjaHorbach 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]

chuckdries · 2026-07-15T22:53:45Z

I'm gonna have @daledah review this since he has context from reviewing the first one

daledah · 2026-07-18T02:50:48Z

thanks @chuckdries, on my list today

daledah · 2026-07-19T01:12:26Z

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

Screen.Recording.2026-07-19.at.08.11.56.mov

daledah

Thanks for bringing this back. Same App changeset as #90726

I re-tested the reveal_card_details flow (the case that caused #96131) and confirmed the magic code is accepted

LGTM.

melvin-bot · 2026-07-19T01:16:46Z

@NicolasBonet 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]

melvin-bot · 2026-07-19T01:16:48Z

🎯 @daledah, thanks for reviewing and testing this PR! 🎉

A payment issue will be created for your review once this PR is deployed to production.
E/E issue linked to the PR - https://www.github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/623748.

If payment is not needed (e.g., regression PR review fix etc), react with 👎 to this comment to prevent the payment issue from being created.

NicolasBonet · 2026-07-20T14:11:28Z

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.

github-actions · 2026-07-20T14:33:03Z

🚧 NicolasBonet has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

github-actions · 2026-07-20T14:38:58Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #96224.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-2434b3fbba2-24d465b-55e74f9fa2bd3cfdd03d8e07bc4df1d577bd757d/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-2434b3f-24d465b-f5139d4457835fef5fa5ee2d52109726d3027e12/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://96224.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-07-20T14:38:59Z

✋ 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 · 2026-07-21T01:32:46Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/NicolasBonet in version: 9.4.41-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-07-21T01:35:52Z

🤖 No help site changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against docs/articles and don't think any updates to the help site are needed.

Why

What this PR changes: It plumbs a reasonCode (and, for card reveals, a reasonCardID) from the App's magic-code call sites through to the backend so the magic-code email can state the specific reason it was requested (e.g. "Sign in to your Expensify account", "Reveal details for your Expensify card ending in NNNN", "Verify that this contact method can be used to reach you") and hide the sign-in button for non-login flows. This is a frontend-plumbing change — the actual email copy is generated backend-side, and the in-app flows (sign-in, add contact method, verify account, reveal card details) behave the same as before.

Help articles that reference Magic Codes — none document the changed behavior:

new-expensify/settings/Avoiding-common-scams.md — describes the Magic Code concept and scam avoidance generically; doesn't reproduce the email body wording.
new-expensify/settings/Login-Troubleshooting.md — covers delivery/login troubleshooting, not email copy.
expensify-classic/settings/Magic-Code-Access-Troubleshooting.md — troubleshooting only.
new-expensify/expensify-card/Cardholder-Settings-and-Features.md — states US cardholders "confirm with a magic code sent to their email" to reveal card details; that behavior is unchanged.

No article quotes the old email text ("...someone is trying to log in to your account or access a secure feature") or documents the sign-in-button behavior, so there's nothing to update. If the team later wants to lean into this in the anti-phishing guidance (e.g. noting that legitimate emails now tell you why the code was requested), that would be a copy enhancement requiring marketing sign-off — not something required by this PR.

@chuckdries — flagging in case you disagree with my read. If you think the anti-scam or card-reveal articles should mention the new "reason" email copy, let me know and I'll open a draft docs PR.

jponikarchuk · 2026-07-21T09:02:53Z

This PR failing because of the issue #96604
This issue is reproducible in: All platforms

chuckdries · 2026-07-21T20:18:47Z

@jponikarchuk you should only be prompted to fill out your personal information when revealing card details if you haven't done so before. Now that you have done that on that test account, you're no longer missing the information, can you run through the test steps again? If it works correctly on the second time, we will consider this issue a pass, and tackle the edge case where it prompts you for more information will be a follow-up

melvin-bot · 2026-07-22T06:12:35Z

🤖 Payment issue created: #96706

OSBotify · 2026-07-22T06:13:40Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.4.41-4 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android

jponikarchuk · 2026-07-22T08:37:34Z

@chuckdries It works as expected according to this comment

bandicam.2026-07-22.15-34-24-470.mp4

Revert "Merge pull request #96134 from Expensify/revert-90726-chuckdr…

43dd678

…ies/validateCode-reasonCode" This reverts commit b23a0ba, reversing changes made to 0032e48.

chuckdries requested a review from daledah July 15, 2026 21:49

chuckdries self-assigned this Jul 15, 2026

chuckdries marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2026 22:51

chuckdries requested review from a team as code owners July 15, 2026 22:51

melvin-bot Bot requested review from ZhenjaHorbach and removed request for a team July 15, 2026 22:51

melvin-bot Bot requested review from flaviadefaria and removed request for a team July 15, 2026 22:51

chuckdries removed the request for review from ZhenjaHorbach July 15, 2026 22:51

chuckdries mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2026

[Payment due @parasharrajat] Add REGISTER_AUTHENTICATION_KEY reasonCode #96114

Merged

43 tasks

daledah approved these changes Jul 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from NicolasBonet July 19, 2026 01:16

melvin-bot Bot changed the title ~~Bring back validateCode reasonCode~~ [Payment due @daledah] Bring back validateCode reasonCode Jul 19, 2026

NicolasBonet approved these changes Jul 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

NicolasBonet merged commit 2434b3f into main Jul 20, 2026
89 checks passed

NicolasBonet deleted the chuckdries/bring-back-reasonCode branch July 20, 2026 14:31

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jul 21, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-07-21 #96534

Closed

applause-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 21, 2026

[$250] Email- Click 'Reveal' leads to Add personal info and Email is incorrect content #96604

Open

7 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 22, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-07-29] Payment issue for E/App PR#96224 #96706

Open

yichensunjoe mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2026

[$250] Device back button not responsive on navigating back from public room sign in modal #96869

Open

7 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

chuckdries commented Jul 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jul 15, 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!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 15, 2026

Uh oh!

chuckdries commented Jul 15, 2026

Uh oh!

daledah commented Jul 18, 2026

Uh oh!

daledah commented Jul 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

daledah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 19, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 19, 2026

Uh oh!

NicolasBonet commented Jul 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 20, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 20, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 20, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 21, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jul 21, 2026

Uh oh!

jponikarchuk commented Jul 21, 2026

Uh oh!

chuckdries commented Jul 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

jponikarchuk commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

chuckdries commented Jul 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jul 15, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

daledah commented Jul 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

NicolasBonet commented Jul 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

chuckdries commented Jul 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading