@Ollyws 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]

Wouldn't it make more sense that pressing back here takes us back to the category select page?

@trjExpensify What do you think?

Yes, that's what I would expect. If you go back from the category list, then we close the RHP and NOT show a workspace list.

@Ollyws All good now.

Yes, that's what I would expect. If you go back from the category list, then we close the RHP and NOT show a workspace list.

This is working fine when we're going back from the category list, but when we go back from the submit page it closes the panel instead of going back to the category list:

Right, I agree if you go back from the confirmation page it should take you to the category list. If you go back from the category list, it closes the RHP.

@Ollyws When we are from the category step we always closeAndNavigate to the confirmation step. Then I think it's good to close the RHP in confirmation in this case because if in the confirmation step we click on category item to open the category step and click the back button two times, it also closes the RHP.

cc @trjExpensify

What's your opinion on the behaviour in this video @trjExpensify ?

Yeah, my expectation was:

1. Click "categorize it"
2. Upgrade to a workspace to unlock categories
3. Choose a category
4. Land on the confirmation page
5. Go back
6. Choose a category
7. Go back
8. Close the RHP

Whereas, what appears to be happening is:

1. Click "categorize it"
2. Upgrade to a workspace to unlock categories
3. Choose a category
4. Land on the confirmation page
5. Go back
6. Close the RHP

I prefer the first, but I'm not super passionate. Is @nkdengineer basically saying that because this is the same category selector on the confirmation page, we don't navigate back to it when you go back from there ordinarily. CC: @luacmartins @mountiny if you have any strong opinions on this.

I agree that the first option @trjExpensify laid out is better.

Same as Tom and Carlos

@nkdengineer Can you please update the PR based on that expected outcome? thanks!

I updated with this approach. However, I noticed that the animation is different when we click on the category section of the confirmation page for the first time.

@trjExpensify cc @mountiny @Ollyws

@nkdengineer That is not right, we should be pushing that screen in.

@mountiny Currently, we're using closeAndNavigate then this bug will not happen.

But we need to use navigate instead because we want this behavior.

After that when we navigate to this screen, the animation is wrong because the screen is existed

I feel like there must be a way to achieve this @adamgrzybowski @WojtekBoman in case you have an idea on how to achieve this flow in the RHP

Yeah, my expectation was:

1. Click "categorize it"
2. Upgrade to a workspace to unlock categories
3. Choose a category
4. Land on the confirmation page
5. Go back
6. Choose a category
7. Go back
8. Close the RHP

@mountiny @trjExpensify @nkdengineer

I'd like to make sure. Is this what we want to achieve?

@WojtekBoman @adamgrzybowski That looks good for the flow once you already upgraded to workspace. I guess its harder when the user does not have a workspace yet and then by categorizing it, we need to create a workspace

I guess its harder when the user does not have a workspace yet and then by categorizing it, we need to create a workspace

They go through an upgrade interstitial. Confirming on that page (before seeing the category list) is what creates the workspace.

After upgrading the workspace, categorizing flow is opened and works the same way as on the previous video that I attached

That looks like what we're after.

@WojtekBoman nice! What changes have you made?

Here, I added CONST.NAVIGATION.ACTION_TYPE.PUSH as the second param of Navigation.navigate

I only added the two changes I mentioned above, but I'm not very familiar with the categorization flow, so it's possible I missed something

Thank you! @nkdengineer can you please check these out?

Thanks, @WojtekBoman. @mountiny I updated the code and the test steps.

Thanks! @Ollyws what is your ETA for the review?

🚧 @mountiny has triggered a test build. You can view the workflow run here.

@mountiny Will get to this one later today.

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android/53420/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios/53420/index.html
Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/desktop/53420/NewExpensify.dmg	https://53420.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

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 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 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 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.ts 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 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.
• 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

Thanks!

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.75-0 🚀

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.0.75-6 🚀