Fix magic code navigates back on payment (SettlementButton)

[jmusial]

Explanation of Change

When an unvalidated user triggers a payment, the new useVerifyAccountAndResume hook stores the pending payment action, sends the user to the dynamic verify-account (magic code) page, and resumes the stored action once validation succeeds — while dropping it if the user leaves the page without validating.

Fixed Issues

$ #72980
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Pre requisite:

1. Log in with a new account and don't verify it with a magic code

Then:

a) ROUTES.SEARCH_ROOT

2. Create a workspace as admin (via green "+" button)
3. Navigate to the Inbox tab and create an expense
4. Submit and Approve the expense
5. Navigate to the Spend tab > Ready to pay
6. Click on the Pay Button > Pay with business account
7. Verify that the magic code verification modal slides out.
8. Provide Magic Code
9. Verify that account setup modal slides out.

b) ROUTES.SEARCH_MONEY_REQUEST_REPORT

2. Create a workspace as admin (via green "+" button)
3. Navigate to the Inbox tab and create an expense
4. Submit and Approve the expense
5. Navigate to the Spend tab > Expenses
6. Click on the Expense
7. Click on the Pay Button > Pay with business account
8. Verify that the magic code verification modal slides out.
9. Provide Magic Code
10. Verify that account setup modal slides out.

c) ROUTES.REPORT_WITH_ID with the reportID

2. Create a workspace as admin (via green "+" button)
3. Navigate to the Inbox tab and create an expense
4. Submit and Approve the expense
5. Click on the Report
6. Click on the Pay Button > Pay with business account
7. Verify that the magic code verification modal slides out.
8. Provide Magic Code
9. Verify that account setup modal slides out.

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as tests

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 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 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.ts 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(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.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-06-15.at.11.41.51.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-06-15.at.11.45.47.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-06-15.at.11.33.22.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-15.at.11.25.20.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-11.at.09.55.21.mov

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useVerifyAccountAndResume.ts	95.23% <95.23%> (ø)
...s/WideRHPContextProvider/useShouldRenderOverlay.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/components/SettlementButton/index.tsx	85.13% <48.57%> (+3.00%)	⬆️
... and 23 files with indirect coverage changes

[jmusial]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful!

Reviewed commit: 0f69b4d8cc

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[jmusial]

@jmusial conflicts

@MelvinBot review

all addressed cc. @aimane-chnaif

[mountiny]

@aimane-chnaif over to you

[jmusial]

@aimane-chnaif bump

[aimane-chnaif]

Please merge main

[aimane-chnaif]

No need manual memoization

[jmusial]

updated

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Regression review (requested via find regressions)

No hard regressions found. Reviewing the current HEAD (73351ed), the refactor is behavior-preserving for the existing (already-validated) payment path, the overlay tweak is a safe bugfix, and the new resume hook holds up. Tests pass (29/29 across the two touched suites), and typecheck-tsgo + eslint on the three changed files are clean. A few residual risks live only in the new auto-resume path — none of them break a flow that worked before.

What I verified

• Validated-user path is unchanged. Every payment entry point still does check → then run the action, same order as before. The sub-menu onSelected handlers just wrap the old if (checkForNecessaryAction(...)) return; onPress(...) into runPaymentAction, and executePaymentSelection is a verbatim extraction of the old handlePaymentSelection body. For a validated user with no blockers the outcome is identical.
• Overlay guard is a fix, not a regression. Before, an interrupted hide fired the callback and called setShouldRenderOverlay(false) right after a re-show set it true, hiding an overlay that should stay visible. The new if (!finished) return fixes that. I confirmed nothing else calls .stop()/.setValue() on those four overlayProgress values (they're read-only interpolation inputs everywhere else), so finished=false can only come from the intended re-show interruption — the guard can't strand an overlay in the rendered state.
• Resume actually fires. The dynamic verify-account route renders as an RHP/modal overlay (registered in SettingsModalStackNavigator), so SettlementButton stays mounted and the hook's pendingAction state survives.
• Tests: useVerifyAccountAndResume.test.ts + SettlementButtonTest.tsx → 29 passed, 0 failed. typecheck-tsgo and eslint on the 3 changed files → clean.

Residual risks in the new resume path (low severity — all degrade to prior behavior, not worse)

1. Resume re-checks only the post-validation guards, not isDelegateAccessRestricted / isAccountLocked. onResume runs checkForPostValidationBlockers() (bank-locked / restricted-action) then retry(), but the delegate-access and account-locked gates are not re-evaluated. Both were false at tap time (they're checked before the validation gate), and they're very unlikely to flip during magic-code entry, so this is a tiny window — worth a comment noting the assumption.

2. The resumed closure replays a stale event and a stale triggerKYCFlow. The stored retry is () => executePaymentSelection(event, …, triggerKYCFlow, …) captured at tap time. On resume this is low-risk: KYCWall anchors off the live anchorRef.current (button stays mounted), so event is only a fallback. The one edge case is web — if anchorRef.current were ever null at resume, the fallback event.currentTarget could point at a detached node and mis-position the AddPaymentMethodMenu popover (cosmetic, not a crash). Only affects the "no valid payment method" branch.

3. The resume-drop race the earlier bot/review P1 flagged appears addressed here. The current effect resumes via runAfterTransition even when the verify page already closed itself, and the abandon listener reads validation state through an effect-event — and there's now a unit test (resumes when the verify account route already closed itself before validation was observed) covering that ordering. Reads as resolved; flagging only so the reviewer confirms it against the earlier discussion.

---

Next Steps: Reply with @MelvinBot <feedback> to dig into any of these, or @MelvinBot implement <n> to have me address one.

[aimane-chnaif]

Bug on mobile: Navigating back from Add bank account flow goes to Inbox tab. Also happens in production so out of scope.

Repro step:

1. Go to Spend > Reports
2. Tap expense report
3. Tap Pay dropdown > Pay with business account
4. Tap back button

Expected Result:
Go back to Expense report page

Actual Result:
Inbox tab opens

Screen.Recording.2026-07-10.at.10.56.41.AM.mov

[aimane-chnaif]

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 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 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 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.
• 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

Android: HybridApp

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios1.mov

ios2.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web1.mov

web2.mov

web3.mov

[jmusial]

Bug on mobile: Navigating back from Add bank account flow goes to Inbox tab. Also happens in production so out of scope.

Repro step:

1. Go to Spend > Reports
2. Tap expense report
3. Tap Pay dropdown > Pay with business account
4. Tap back button

Expected Result: Go back to Expense report page

Actual Result: Inbox tab opens

Screen.Recording.2026-07-10.at.10.56.41.AM.mov

Will look into this, but fix in a separate PR.

[jmusial]

#72980

Ok, got a draft PR here it's a workaround fix but would like to investigate it a bit more to get to the root cause.
cc. @mountiny not sure if you want it under a separate issue ?

[mountiny]

You can keep it under this same issue, thanks

[trjExpensify]

Makes sense 👍

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #93087.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-6ce0d0c77e8-3fececf-6ff2b185419724121f2ce8c86f3cf57f121f1305/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-6ce0d0c-3fececf-75f424ee4d07b22001244ade8cf51b4a1d308e32/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://93087.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.34-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help articles under App/docs/articles and no documentation updates are needed, so I did not create a draft PR.

Why: This is an internal bug fix, not a user-facing product change. The PR refactors SettlementButton to use a new useVerifyAccountAndResume hook so that when an unvalidated user triggers a payment, the magic-code verification step now resumes the payment after validation instead of navigating back and dropping the pending action. It:

• Adds no new feature, setting, tab, label, or button.
• Renames nothing in the UI.
• Restores the expected behavior of an existing flow (pay → verify account with magic code → payment continues).

The existing magic-code help articles (e.g. Magic-Code-Access-Troubleshooting.md, Login-Troubleshooting.md) cover login/access and account verification generally — none of them document the payment navigation internals this PR touches, and none contradict the corrected behavior. There is nothing procedural for a customer to relearn.

⚠️ Note: I could not verify this in a live browser session (NewDot web could not be driven in this run), so this assessment is based on static review of the diff and the help-site content.

If you feel a customer-facing article should describe what happens when paying before validating your account (this PR just makes that flow work correctly rather than introducing it), let me know and I'll draft one.

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #96091 was identified to be related to this PR.

[mitarachim]

Deploy Blocker #96153 was identified to be related to this PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.34-14 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.34-14 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android