Preserve openReport's shouldRetry:false opt-out for deep links

[JakubKorytko]

Explanation of Change

prepareRequest in makeRequest.ts unconditionally set shouldRetry = true on every write request, overwriting openReport's explicit shouldRetry: false for the deep-link (unauthenticated public room preview) case. Changed to ??= so an explicit false set by the caller is preserved. Added unit tests covering both the default-true and preserved-false cases.

Fixed Issues

$ #98767
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

1. Create a workspace with at least 3 members and enable a public #announce room OR create a public room in the workspace.
2. Copy the room's link (e.g. https://dev.new.expensify.com:8082/r/<reportID>).
3. Open that link in a private/incognito browser window (no existing session).
4. Open DevTools Network tab, filter for OpenReport, and inspect the first OpenReport request fired on page load.
5. Verify that the request's shouldRetry field is false.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 on main or staging (without this fix) to confirm shouldRetry shows true there instead.

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests, but using the staging environment (compare to prod)

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

Web.mov

[JakubKorytko]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Bravo.

Reviewed commit: 38825dc726

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".

[melvin-bot]

@mkhutornyi 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]

[mkhutornyi]

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

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

[mkhutornyi]

Looks good. Doing some more regression tests

[trjExpensify]

👍

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Chef's kiss.

Reviewed commit: 38825dc726

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".

[MelvinBot]

Review — LGTM ✅

The fix is correct and minimal. Changing makeRequest.ts:146 from request.data.shouldRetry = true to ??= true preserves an explicit false while still defaulting to true when the caller left it unset — exactly what the deep-link openReport opt-out needs. This matches how downstream code gates retries on shouldRetry === false (MainQueue.ts:56, Middleware/Reauthentication.ts:88).

Scope check: I looked for other WRITE callers that pass shouldRetry: false and could see a behavior change from this. The deep-link openReport is the only one — LogOut goes through the SIDE_EFFECT path (never hits this block), and SupportalPermission.ts:26 sets shouldRetry = false in a middleware that runs after prepareRequest, so it's unaffected either way. No unintended regressions.

Tests: Both new tests in APITest.ts are coherent — one asserts the default-true path via a normal write command, the other asserts the preserved-false path via OPEN_REPORT — and directly exercise the two branches of the ??=. shouldRetry?: boolean is already declared on OpenReportParams, so the test payload is type-valid.

Minor, non-blocking

• The ## Impact section of the linked issue notes the user-visible regression is "not yet confirmed." The fix is safe regardless (it restores intended behavior), but it's worth capturing the concrete symptom in the PR/issue before QA so the QA steps have something observable to check beyond the network-tab shouldRetry value.
• I didn't run a live web test — this is a network-request-field change with no direct UI surface, and the two unit tests already cover both branches. CI's jest run will confirm.

[MelvinBot]

Regression scan — no regressions found ✅

The = true → ??= true change only alters behavior when a WRITE request's params already carry shouldRetry. I traced every place that can set it and the blast radius is a single command — OpenReport — exactly as intended.

Blast-radius check. Four param types declare shouldRetry, but only one is a WRITE command that reaches the isWriteRequest block:

• OpenReportParams → OPEN_REPORT is WRITE (types.ts:684) → affected (intended).
• LogOutParams, OpenOldDotLinkParams, AuthenticatePusherParams → all SIDE_EFFECT commands (types.ts:1630-1649). isWriteRequest is false for these, so they never entered this block before or after — unaffected.

Within OpenReport, both paths are safe:

• Non-deep-link opens never set shouldRetry, so it stays undefined → ??= defaults it to true → identical to old behavior (still retries). This is the overwhelmingly common path.
• Deep-link opens set shouldRetry = false, now preserved → restores the intended 2023 opt-out. Not a new regression — it re-establishes behavior that the July API.write refactor silently broke.

No other injection points. A full shouldRetry sweep of src/ shows the only write-path writer is that one deep-link line; SupportalPermission sets it in a middleware that runs after prepareRequest, so it's unchanged either way.

Live smoke test (web). Opened the Concierge report from the LHN — header, message body, and composer all rendered with no error banners or stuck spinners, confirming the high-frequency OpenReport write path is intact. (A second distinct chat couldn't be exercised — the fresh test account has only the Concierge chat across Inbox/Workspaces/Spend — so this covers the single-report case only.)

Residual risk (low, non-blocking)

The only way this could bite is a future/other WRITE caller that passes shouldRetry: false through params (e.g. via an object spread) and actually wanted retries — it would now be honored instead of force-retried. No such caller exists today, and honoring an explicit false is the correct semantics, so this is a note rather than a concern.

Evidence

Inbox LHN showing single Expensify Concierge chat next to opened report

Concierge report open with header, welcome message, and composer visible

[mountiny]

Thanks, looks good to me

[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 #98772.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-ce709b7-3d1e22c-202eb6d8bd20745903aceb735704963827ece822/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-ce709b7-3d1e22c-55559c66e5c67c06a152304928028a52a7a21008/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://98772.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.57-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

This PR is a purely internal fix to the API request layer. It changes src/libs/API/makeRequest.ts:147 so that prepareRequest uses shouldRetry ??= true instead of unconditionally forcing shouldRetry = true, preserving a caller's explicit shouldRetry: false (the unauthenticated public-room deep-link OpenReport case). The rest of the diff is unit tests.

shouldRetry is an internal network-retry flag with no user-facing surface — no feature, tab, setting, button, or workflow changes. Nothing under App/docs/articles documents this behavior, so there is nothing to add or update on the help site.

Since no changes are required, I did not create a draft docs PR.

---

view run

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.4.57-3 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android