Don't show New workspace button when the restrict policy creation security group is enabled

[paulnjs]

Explanation of Change

Don't show New workspace button when the restrict policy creation security group is enabled

Fixed Issues

$ #72272
PROPOSAL: #72272 (comment)

Tests

1. Sign in with a private domain which restricted policy creation
2. Go Workspaces
3. Verify that no New workspace button
4. Go FAB
5. Verify that no New workspace button

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same

QA Steps

Same as test

• 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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

@eVoloshchak 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]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 61.53846% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/pages/workspace/WorkspacesListPage.tsx	55.55%	4 Missing ⚠️
...kspaceOptional/BaseOnboardingWorkspaceOptional.tsx	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/usePreferredPolicy.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ion/AppNavigator/usePreloadFullScreenNavigators.ts	17.24% <100.00%> (+14.60%)	⬆️
...es/home/sidebar/FloatingActionButtonAndPopover.tsx	51.20% <100.00%> (+0.80%)	⬆️
...kspaceOptional/BaseOnboardingWorkspaceOptional.tsx	2.94% <0.00%> (+1.15%)	⬆️
src/pages/workspace/WorkspacesListPage.tsx	54.73% <55.55%> (+47.91%)	⬆️

... and 1016 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[trjExpensify]

@eVoloshchak this one came up again today, can you review it? Thanks!

[eVoloshchak]

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
  • 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-10-24.at.18.15.19.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-10-24.at.18.34.28.mov

[paulnjs]

restrict policy creation security group is enabled

@trjExpensify I have a question: What data we need to check for this restriction: enableRestrictedPrimaryPolicy or enableRestrictedPolicyCreation?

App/src/hooks/usePreferredPolicy.ts

Line 34 in a0b659d

const isRestrictionEnabled = securityGroup?.enableRestrictedPrimaryPolicy === true;

App/src/types/onyx/SecurityGroup.ts

Lines 6 to 10 in a0b659d

	/** Whether the security group restricts policy creation for group members */
	enableRestrictedPolicyCreation: boolean;
	/** The default unapproved expense limit for cards in the security group */
	defaultCardUnapprovedExpenseLimit?: number;

[trjExpensify]

The securityGroup setting.

[eVoloshchak]

@paulnjs, we can use canCreatePolicy method from Permissions, it already contains the enableRestrictedPolicyCreation check

[paulnjs]

The securityGroup setting.

@trjExpensify I mean which field in securityGroup data we should use to check this enableRestrictedPrimaryPolicy field or enableRestrictedPolicyCreation.

[trjExpensify]

enableRestrictedPolicyCreation is the one for this restriction.

enableRestrictedPrimaryPolicy is for not letting a member of the securityGroup to change their default workspace.

[trjExpensify]

Are we all set here? Can @eVoloshchak complete the review?

[paulnjs]

@eVoloshchak Please review again.

[paulnjs]

@trjExpensify Can you help to test this PR with the real data to verify it works well? I'm just hardcoding the value for testing.

[eVoloshchak]

Can you help to test this PR with the real data to verify it works well? I'm just hardcoding the value for testing.

@paulnjs, that's a job for C+, I have a private domain set up, will test this later today

[paulnjs]

Thanks.

[eVoloshchak]

I have a private domain set up, will test this later today

This ended up being much more delayed than I expected, orders do not go through, expect an update shortly

[eVoloshchak]

@trjExpensify, are we supposed to show the onboarding to newly created users in a private domain? During the onboarding, depending on the option the user chooses, we either create a workspace for them or prompt them to create a new one

Same thing happens with the Workspaces page, we hide the New Workspace button, but if the account has no new workspaces, there is a full-screen "Create new workspace" page

Should these also be solved in this PR?

[trjExpensify]

@trjExpensify, are we supposed to show the onboarding to newly created users in a private domain? During the onboarding, depending on the option the user chooses, we either create a workspace for them or prompt them to create a new one

This is being worked on already in this PR which you're a reviewer on haha. How did you get onboarding to show? That's what we were struggling with in that PR to move it forward without hardcoding it.

Same thing happens with the Workspaces page, we hide the New Workspace button, but if the account has no new workspaces, there is a full-screen "Create new workspace" page

Yeah, this should be covered here. Don't show the New workspace button in the empty state of the page either. Same as please check we aren't showing the New workspace button in global create.

[eVoloshchak]

This is being worked on already in #67613 which you're a reviewer on haha. How did you get onboarding to show?

Yeah, I remember it being an issue, so triggered it manually in this case, because it will show up when we fix it in #67613. I do think we shouldn't wait for that here, we can fix it right away, and QA can test this by triggering the onboarding manually using the console (won't work for native though)

Same as please check we aren't showing the New workspace button in global create.

This one is done

Don't show the New workspace button in the empty state of the page either.

This one is not yet, thank you for clearing this up

cc: @paulnjs

[eVoloshchak]

Ah okay, so you triggered it manually to show when testing this PR?

Yes, that is correct

Then, are you suggesting we just move forward with merging #67613 such that if onboarding does show, we have better handling of it for this case?

No, I meant we shouldn't wait for #67613 to proceed with this PR. As of now, the onboarding will not show for users in private domain, but when this is fixed in #67613, it will, and it will show a "Create Workspace" button to users (which we're trying to prevent)

So I suggest we just move forward with this PR such that if onboarding does show, we have better handling of it for this case. But to test this QA will have to put the following into the console:

Onyx.set("nvp_onboarding", {
    hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow: false,
    shouldValidate: false,
  }).then()

@paulnjs, could you add that to the test steps please?

[eVoloshchak]

1. @paulnjs, when selecting "Track and budget expenses", we can just not show the workspace creation modal at all if policy creation is restricted

The only possible action is "Skip", so there is no point in showing the modal at all.

2. When selecting "Manage my team's expenses", we prompt the user to select the number of employees, which accounting software they use, which features to enable in a workspace, and after that, we create a workspace for them. @trjExpensify, I figure we need to get rid of the last two steps (if policy creation is restricted), but do we leave the first two steps (number of employees and which accounting software they use)?

[trjExpensify]

No, I meant we shouldn't wait for #67613 to proceed with this PR. As of now, the onboarding will not show for users in private domain, but when this is fixed in #67613, it will, and it will show a "Create Workspace" button to users (which we're trying to prevent)

Oh, why will it show when it has this domain restriction about creating workspaces in place? Looking at the PRs vid, we show them the JoinExistingPolicies screen and then if they skip, close it.

[eVoloshchak]

Ah that's right, we already have that logic implemented. Thank you!
In that case, we're all set here

[eVoloshchak]

LGTM!

[dangrous]

Cool! This works for me.

[dangrous]

Actually - are we able to add any automated tests for this, confirming the buttons don't show when they're not supposed to?

[paulnjs]

@dangrous The logic is in the UI so I'm not sure how can we write the automation test for this?

[dangrous]

@paulnjs there are a number of component tests in tests/ui - basically i think we should create the component, pass the appropriate policy data and make sure the buttons show up when they should and not when they shouldn't. Does that make sense?

[paulnjs]

@dangrous I added the test.

[dangrous]

Apologies, can we add one more test case - to confirm the button IS shown when enableRestrictedPolicyCreation is false? thanks!

[paulnjs]

@dangrous added. Please help to check it

[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/dangrous in version: 9.2.41-0 🚀

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

[lanitochka17]

This PR is failing because of issue ##73864

The issue is reproducible in: All

[Attach an evidence of the PR failing with the issue]

507760974-f740041d-f34e-456a-9b59-bcf2720a215f.mp4

[dangrous]

Ah yep we should do the same for the upgrade flow! As for QA, as long as the instructions in this particular issue still pass, then we're good here.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.2.41-6 🚀

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