Fix: Add agent rule RHP back button closes the RHP instead of opening the Suggested tab

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

On the "Add agent rule" flow, the RHP header shows two peer tabs — Suggested and Edit — both selectable via the TabSelector. The header back button handler was intercepting the press whenever the Edit tab was active and switching back to the Suggested tab instead of closing the RHP. So a user who opened the RHP, clicked the Edit tab, and then pressed back stayed inside the RHP on the Suggested tab rather than exiting (reported as a deploy blocker regression from #95875).

This removes the tab-stepping special case so the back button always calls Navigation.goBack() and closes the RHP. Switching between Suggested and Edit remains fully handled by the TabSelector. As a side benefit, pressing back from the Edit tab now correctly routes through Navigation.goBack(), so the unsaved-changes discard prompt (wired via the beforeRemove listener in useDiscardChangesConfirmation) fires as expected instead of being bypassed.

Fixed Issues

$ #96547
PROPOSAL: #96547 (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 validates your changed worked.

Suggested flow to verify:

1. Enable Rules, go to Workspace settings > Rules.
2. Click "Add agent rule".
3. Click the "Edit" tab.
4. Click the RHP back button.
5. Verify the RHP closes (it no longer jumps back to the "Suggested" tab).
6. Verify tab switching between "Suggested" and "Edit" still works via the tabs themselves.
7. On the "Edit" tab, type a prompt, then press back and verify the discard-changes prompt appears.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

Same as tests.

• 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

[MelvinBot]

I created this PR from an upstream branch since I don't have push access to your fork.

To take ownership of this branch and be able to push updates, run:

git remote add upstream https://github.com/Expensify/App.git
git fetch upstream claude-agentRuleBackButtonClosesRHP
git checkout -b claude-agentRuleBackButtonClosesRHP upstream/claude-agentRuleBackButtonClosesRHP
git push -u origin claude-agentRuleBackButtonClosesRHP

Then you can close this PR and open a new one from your fork.

[MelvinBot]

All the substantive CI checks on this PR are passing — typecheck, ESLint, Oxfmt, test (jobs 1–8), all build variants, knip, Storybook tests, Bun tests, spellcheck, and React Compiler Compliance are green.

The only failing check is PR Author Checklist / checklist, and it can't be fixed by a code push. It fails for two reasons, both expected on a bot-authored PR:

1. The PR Author Checklist boxes in the description are all unchecked ("PR Author Checklist is not completely filled out").
2. Engineering membership couldn't be verified for the PR author (MelvinBot), so the checklist enforcement doesn't auto-pass.

What's needed: as the human co-author, please fill out the checklist — complete the Tests/QA Steps sections and tick the checklist items (including per-platform testing) — then the check will re-run and pass. There's nothing in the code to fix here, so I haven't pushed any changes.

(The baseline-perf-tests / branch-perf-tests were still running at the time of this analysis — they're pending, not failing.)

[mananjadhav]

@MelvinBot Please close this PR. It's not needed.

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Closed this PR as requested — it's not needed. Reopen anytime if that changes.