Fix receipt replace back navigation on native by MelvinBot · Pull Request #84783 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-03-10T18:38:33Z

Explanation of Change

The native navigateBack() function in IOURequestStepScan/index.native.tsx was not passing the backTo parameter to Navigation.goBack(), unlike the web version which correctly does. This caused incorrect back navigation when replacing a receipt — after capturing a replacement photo, pressing back returned to the camera screen instead of the previous screen.

This change updates navigateBack() in the native file to pass backTo to Navigation.goBack() and wraps it in useCallback, matching the web implementation exactly.

Fixed Issues

$ #82491
PROPOSAL: #82491 (comment)

Tests

Create two expenses, one of which has a receipt.
Tap Reports and select the expense that has the receipt.
Tap on the receipt and the overflow button.
Select Replace.
Take a photo.
Tap back or swipe to return to the previous screen.
Verify the user navigates back to the correct screen (not the camera screen).

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — This change only affects navigation routing after a receipt photo is captured. No network requests are involved in the navigateBack function.

QA Steps

Create two expenses, one of which has a receipt.
Tap Reports and select the expense that has the receipt.
Tap on the receipt and the overflow button.
Select Replace.
Take a photo.
Tap back or swipe to return to the previous screen.
Verify the user navigates back to the correct screen (not the camera screen).

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A — This change only affects the native platform file (index.native.tsx).

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A — This change only affects the native platform file (index.native.tsx).

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A — This change only affects the native platform file (index.native.tsx).

…navigateBack The native navigateBack() was not passing the backTo parameter to Navigation.goBack(), unlike the web version. This caused incorrect navigation when replacing a receipt — pressing back after capturing a photo returned to the camera screen instead of the previous screen. Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-10T18:38:47Z

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-fixReceiptReplaceNavBack
git checkout -b claude-fixReceiptReplaceNavBack upstream/claude-fixReceiptReplaceNavBack
git push -u origin claude-fixReceiptReplaceNavBack

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

codecov · 2026-03-10T19:05:13Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...u/request/step/IOURequestStepScan/index.native.tsx	`40.25% <50.00%> (ø)`
... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes

truph01 · 2026-03-12T08:50:04Z

@MelvinBot Please merge main then mark it as ready for review

…aceNavBack Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

melvin-bot · 2026-03-12T08:56:46Z

@truph01 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]

MelvinBot · 2026-03-12T08:56:48Z

Done! I've merged main into this branch and marked the PR as ready for review.

joekaufmanexpensify

Good for product

truph01 · 2026-03-16T10:45:31Z

@MelvinBot Please merge main

…aceNavBack Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-16T10:50:11Z

Done! I've merged main into this branch.

melvin-bot · 2026-03-16T10:50:46Z

@jasperhuangg 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]

truph01 · 2026-03-16T12:01:25Z

@MelvinBot should we only apply the change when isEditing, and for other cases, leave it as it is?

MelvinBot · 2026-03-16T12:05:56Z

No, gating the change on isEditing is not necessary — the unconditional approach is correct. Here's why:

Matches the web implementation exactly. The web file (index.tsx:47-49) already passes backTo unconditionally — it is NOT gated on isEditing. This PR simply makes native match web.
goBack(undefined) is functionally identical to goBack(). In Navigation.ts:474, the check is if (backToRoute) — a truthiness check. Since undefined is falsy, it skips the goUp call and falls through to the standard navigationRef.current?.goBack(). So when backTo is undefined, the behavior is unchanged.
In practice, backTo is always provided. Every caller of MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_SCAN.getRoute passes a non-empty backTo value (e.g., Navigation.getActiveRoute()). But even in a theoretical case where it's missing, point 2 above ensures safety.
Both call sites benefit. navigateBack is called in two places: (a) inside updateScanAndNavigate (the editing/receipt-replace flow), and (b) as onBackButtonPress for StepScreenWrapper. Both benefit from more deterministic navigation when backTo is available.

So the current unconditional change is the right approach — adding an isEditing guard would add unnecessary complexity with no behavioral benefit.

truph01 · 2026-03-16T16:06:49Z

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 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

Screen.Recording.2026-03-16.at.23.06.07.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-03-16.at.19.19.23.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

github-actions · 2026-03-16T17:31:44Z

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

github-actions · 2026-03-16T17:36:50Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #84783.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-fd87693-a6a9d5f-67aff241e9e59e4d00ddfc2b8c090bc34471907d/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-fd87693-a6a9d5f-ae8cd9cb4d9c28b1b0240dd3d59fc01738f396e8/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://84783.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-16T17:37:40Z

✋ 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 · 2026-03-17T11:55:44Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.3.39-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-18T13:02:50Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.3.39-3 🚀

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

MelvinBot assigned truph01 Mar 10, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team March 10, 2026 18:38

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2026

[$250] Reports - Going back from a replace receipt flow on a scanned expense returns to camera #82491

Open

7 tasks

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-fixReceiptRepl…

b7517c4

…aceNavBack Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review March 12, 2026 08:56

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 12, 2026 08:56

melvin-bot bot requested review from truph01 and removed request for a team March 12, 2026 08:56

melvin-bot bot requested review from joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team March 12, 2026 08:56

joekaufmanexpensify approved these changes Mar 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-fixReceiptRepl…

add0a2f

…aceNavBack Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 16, 2026 10:50

melvin-bot bot requested review from jasperhuangg and removed request for a team March 16, 2026 10:50

truph01 approved these changes Mar 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

jasperhuangg approved these changes Mar 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

jasperhuangg merged commit fd87693 into main Mar 16, 2026
36 checks passed

jasperhuangg deleted the claude-fixReceiptReplaceNavBack branch March 16, 2026 17:29

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 17, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-17 #85529

Closed

75 tasks

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Mar 10, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 10, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 10, 2026 • edited by github-actions bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

codecov bot commented Mar 10, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading