Fix: keep invoice room visible after deleting an invoice instead of showing Not here

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Deleting an invoice (via More > Delete) removes the whole IOU report, so getNavigationUrlOnMoneyRequestDelete navigates back to the invoice room — a central-pane report two levels below the report-details RHP. That goBack doesn't synchronously unfocus the details RHP, so when the deferred optimistic delete nulls the report, the RHP is still focused. withReportOrNotFound's NotFound gate was suppressed only while the screen was unfocused, so it rendered the "Not here" page on the RHP.

This mirrors the escape hatch that ReportNotFoundGuard already has for the report screen underneath: subscribe to NVP_DELETE_TRANSACTION_NAVIGATE_BACK_URL and keep the NotFound page suppressed while a delete-transaction navigation is in flight. It's self-terminating — DeleteTransactionNavigateBackHandler clears the URL once the transition settles, so a genuinely-deleted report still falls through to NotFound.

Added a regression test in tests/ui/DynamicReportDetailsPageTest.tsx that seeds an invoice report + room, marks report data as loaded, then sets the delete-back URL and nulls the invoice report while the RHP is focused, asserting the NotFound page stays suppressed.

Fixed Issues

$ #97399
PROPOSAL: #97399 (comment)

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 validate your change worked.

Suggested steps:

1. Enable Invoices, then FAB > Send invoice to any user.
2. Open the invoice room, then open the invoice report.
3. Click More > Delete > Delete.
4. Verify the RHP closes and you land back on the invoice room (no "Not here" page).

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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 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 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

- [ ] I verified that similar component doesn't exist in the codebase - [ ] I verified that all props are defined accurately and each prop has a `/** comment above it */` - [ ] I verified that each file is named correctly - [ ] I verified that each component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone - [ ] I verified that the only data being stored in component state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else - [ ] In component if we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes - [ ] 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) - [ ] I verified that component 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`) - [ ] I verified that all JSX used for rendering exists in the render method - [ ] I verified that each 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

Screenshots/Videosundefined

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing spellcheck check.

Root cause: cspell flagged the word "unfocusing" (an unknown word) in two code comments — withReportOrNotFound.tsx:123 and DynamicReportDetailsPageTest.tsx:209.

Fix: Reworded both comments to "removing focus from", which preserves the meaning. npm run spell-changed now passes with 0 issues.

The only other failing check is PR Author Checklist / checklist, which is expected to fail until the human co-author fills out the checkboxes and Tests/QA sections — nothing for me to fix there.

[MelvinBot]

All fixable checks are now passing. spellcheck (the real failure) went green after the earlier fix reworded "unfocusing" → "removing focus from".

The only remaining red check is PR Author Checklist / checklist, which fails by design until the human co-author checks every box and fills out the Tests / QA Steps sections in the PR body. That one isn't something I can (or should) complete on your behalf — go through the checklist and it'll clear.

[nyomanjyotisa]

@MelvinBot I rechecked this and my earlier assumption was incomplete. Invoice reports are excluded from useGetIOUReportFromReportAction(), so this flow never creates the back URL. The test misses this because it sets the URL manually.

Please keep this guard, add the invoice fallback from #97495, and cover the real invoice path creating the URL.

[MelvinBot]

Done — pushed 17c6be9. You're right: invoice reports are excluded from useGetIOUReportFromReportAction, so iouReport is undefined and getNavigationUrlOnMoneyRequestDelete returned no URL — the guard alone never fired for the real flow.

What changed

• Kept the guard in withReportOrNotFound.tsx.
• Added the invoice fallback from Expensify/App#97495 — DynamicReportDetailsPage.tsx:1131-1140 now passes iouReport ?? (isInvoiceReport ? report : undefined), so the invoice report (whose chatReportID points to the room) drives the back URL. Added isInvoiceReport and report to the callback deps.
• Covered the real URL creation in DynamicReportDetailsPageTest.tsx. Instead of hardcoding the URL, both tests now call the production getNavigationUrlOnMoneyRequestDelete with the invoice fallback and assert it returns the invoice-room route. A new test proves the real invoice path builds the URL (it returned undefined before this fix); the suppression test then drives the guard with that computed URL rather than a manually-set one.

Verification

• DynamicReportDetailsPageTest.tsx — 5/5 pass.
• npm run lint-changed — 0 errors (only pre-existing seatbelt warnings).
• npm run typecheck-tsgo — clean.
• React Compiler compliance — the 4 preserve-manual-memoization errors are pre-existing (lines 239/311/812) and unrelated to the navigateToTargetUrl dep change; seatbelt count is unchanged.

[MelvinBot]

✅ The spellcheck check is now passing after my earlier fix (reworded "unfocusing" → "removing focus from").

The only remaining red check is PR Author Checklist / checklist, which is expected to stay failing until the human co-author fills out the checkboxes and the Tests/QA sections — there's nothing for me to fix there. All other checks are passing or still running.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useExpenseActions.ts	66.01% <100.00%> (+66.01%)	⬆️
src/pages/DynamicReportDetailsPage.tsx	67.47% <100.00%> (+8.83%)	⬆️
src/pages/inbox/report/withReportOrNotFound.tsx	97.43% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
... and 38 files with indirect coverage changes

[nyomanjyotisa]

@MelvinBot The fallback looks correct, but the test bypasses it by passing invoiceReport directly to the helper. Please test the delete navigation through DynamicReportDetailsPage so removing the fallback makes the test fail.

[MelvinBot]

Good catch — fixed in 091214f. The test no longer calls the helper directly. It now renders DynamicReportDetailsPage for a real invoice, presses Delete expense, confirms, and asserts the page itself wrote the invoice-room URL to deleteTransactionNavigateBackUrl — so the fallback is exercised end-to-end.

Verified it guards the fallback: with the iouReport ?? (isInvoiceReport ? report : undefined) fallback removed, the new test fails (Expected: "r/30", Received: undefined); restored, it passes.

How the test drives the real path

• Seeds an invoice report + room + one-transaction thread + the IOU action, with the transaction on the invoice report so deleting it deletes the whole report (the navigate-back-to-room case). DynamicReportDetailsPageTest.tsx:239-277
• Auto-confirms the delete modal via a useConfirmModal mock, runs the deferred navigate-back synchronously, and no-ops the navigation side effects so navigateToTargetUrl reaches the URL builder. DynamicReportDetailsPageTest.tsx:283-296
• Asserts on NVP_DELETE_TRANSACTION_NAVIGATE_BACK_URL that the component wrote — the value only exists if the invoice fallback produced a URL. DynamicReportDetailsPageTest.tsx:315-323

The suppression test keeps setting the URL directly, since it only exercises the withReportOrNotFound guard.

Checks: 5/5 tests pass, lint-changed 0 errors, typecheck-tsgo clean.

[nyomanjyotisa]

@MelvinBot I tested the current head and the original flow still reproduces. Opening an invoice from the invoice room and selecting More → Delete leaves the /e/:reportID RHP on “Not here.”

The regression test renders DynamicReportDetailsPage, but the reported flow runs through SearchMoneyRequestReportPage and useSelectedTransactionsActions. Please update the implementation and test to cover the actual /e/:reportID flow.

[MelvinBot]

Good catch — you're right that the /e/:reportID flow was still broken. Fixed in 2224cfa.

Root cause of the still-reproducing flow: the /e/:reportID page (SearchMoneyRequestReportPage) already suppresses "Not here" whenever NVP_DELETE_TRANSACTION_NAVIGATE_BACK_URL is set — but its "More → Delete" runs through the header menu → useExpenseActions, which had the same invoice gap: iouReport from useGetIOUReportFromReportAction is undefined for invoices → getNavigationUrlOnMoneyRequestDelete returned undefined → goBackRoute was empty, so the delete never navigated back and never wrote a usable back URL. So it stranded on "Not here."

(One clarification: the actual delete handler for this page is useExpenseActions, not useSelectedTransactionsActions — the latter is only the bulk selection-toolbar path.)

The fix applies the same invoice fallback there — useExpenseActions.ts:534-544:

iouReport ?? (isInvoiceReport(moneyRequestReport) ? moneyRequestReport : undefined)

Now goBackRoute resolves to the invoice room, navigateOnDeleteExpense navigates back, and the RHP unmounts cleanly.

Test covering the real flow — tests/unit/hooks/useExpenseActionsInvoiceDeleteTest.tsx. It renders useExpenseActions for an invoice, invokes the real DELETE action's onSelected, and asserts the written back URL is the invoice room. I verified it fails without the fix (back URL is empty "", i.e. the bug) and passes with it — a genuine regression test for the /e/ path, not a manually-seeded URL.

Verification

• useExpenseActionsInvoiceDeleteTest.tsx + DynamicReportDetailsPageTest.tsx — 6/6 pass.
• Confirmed the new test fails on the pre-fix code (Expected "r/30", Received "").
• npm run lint on both files — 0 errors.
• npm run typecheck-tsgo — clean.
• React Compiler compliance (useExpenseActions.ts) — passes.

I kept the earlier DynamicReportDetailsPage / withReportOrNotFound changes in place — they address the report-details entry point for the same root cause — but this new commit is what fixes the flow you reproduced.

[MelvinBot]

⚠️ MelvinBot CI Fix Loop Detected

MelvinBot has made 5 consecutive commits trying to fix CI failures. Automatic CI fix dispatches are now paused for this PR.

Next steps: A human should review the recent commits and resolve the conflicting CI errors manually.