Fix: "Pay with personal account" does nothing in QAB expense flow by nabi-ebrahimi · Pull Request #88390 · Expensify/App

nabi-ebrahimi · 2026-04-21T10:44:10Z

Explanation of Change

These changes add a dedicated account-verification step to the money request creation flow.

If an unverified user tries to create a money request via the create/pay/start flow, we can now send them to a purpose-built verify-account screen and then return them to the same create flow afterward. The update wires that experience through navigation, deep linking, screen registration, and settlement-button routing so it behaves consistently across app entry points.

Fixed Issues

$ #87779
PROPOSAL: #87779 (comment)

Tests

Create a new, unvalidated Gmail account.
Open 1:1 DM with any user.
Click + > Pay.
Enter amount > Next > Mark as paid.
Open FAB.
Click Pay under Quick action.
Enter the amount and select USD.
Click Pay > Pay with personal account.
Verify that the Magic code page opens because the account is not yet validated.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests.

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.4.48.43.PM.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

REC-2026042151640.PM.mp4

iOS: Native

REC-2026042145505.PM.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

REC-2026042145859.PM.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-21.at.4.47.10.PM.mov

…unt" in QAB

codecov · 2026-04-21T10:53:29Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/SCREENS.ts	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/libs/Navigation/linkingConfig/config.ts	`76.92% <ø> (ø)`
src/ROUTES.ts	`16.95% <0.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
...gation/AppNavigator/ModalStackNavigators/index.tsx	`6.93% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
src/libs/SettlementButtonUtils.ts	`92.85% <50.00%> (-2.15%)`	⬇️
...ou/request/MoneyRequestCreateVerifyAccountPage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 20 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-04-22T04:48:06Z

@situchan 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]

situchan · 2026-04-22T16:04:29Z

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

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.10.39.27.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.10.46.41.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

MelvinBot · 2026-04-22T16:07:15Z

🤖 Code Review

The implementation is clean and follows existing patterns consistently. A few observations:

Looks good:

Route definition, screen constant, navigation types, and linking config all mirror the existing STEP_CONFIRMATION_VERIFY_ACCOUNT pattern exactly
MoneyRequestCreateVerifyAccountPage follows the same structure as MoneyRequestStepConfirmationVerifyAccountPage
The new getRouteMappings entry in SettlementButtonUtils.ts is correctly ordered before the fallback REPORT_WITH_ID check

One question:

The new page sets both navigateBackTo and navigateForwardTo to the same createRoute, while the existing MoneyRequestStepConfirmationVerifyAccountPage only sets navigateBackTo. This means after successful verification, the user navigates (with forceReplace: true) back to the create screen rather than the default behavior of closing the modal. Is that the intended UX? It seems reasonable (return to create flow after verifying), but worth confirming since the confirmation page handles it differently (closes modal on success).

situchan · 2026-04-22T16:22:15Z

+    return (
+        <VerifyAccountPageBase
+            navigateBackTo={createRoute}
+            navigateForwardTo={createRoute}


After successful verification, should we navigate to next step instead of going back to amount input page?

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.10.18.45.PM.mov

This can be out of scope since it's production behavior in normal pay flow

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.10.29.26.PM.mov

situchan · 2026-04-22T16:33:52Z

This is also out of scope as happening on production but worth mentioning:

No amount input validation on "Pay with personal account" while validates on "Mark as paid"

Screen.Recording.2026-04-22.at.10.32.31.PM.mov

luacmartins

LGTM

github-actions · 2026-04-23T14:51:37Z

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

github-actions · 2026-04-23T14:58:43Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #88390.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-d08e104-52e5d87-709fecb27cd3f819222e449342171d6e0ca9ac17/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-d08e104-52e5d87-6e5a28d662c88377a4489429d559506105c7dd58/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://88390.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-04-23T15:03:48Z

✋ 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 · 2026-04-23T20:20:34Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.3.62-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

fix(expense): resolve no action when clicking "Pay with personal acco…

ee1ccd1

…unt" in QAB

melvin-bot Bot assigned nabi-ebrahimi Apr 21, 2026

nabi-ebrahimi marked this pull request as ready for review April 22, 2026 04:48

nabi-ebrahimi requested review from a team as code owners April 22, 2026 04:48

melvin-bot Bot requested review from flaviadefaria and situchan and removed request for a team April 22, 2026 04:48

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team April 22, 2026 04:48

situchan reviewed Apr 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

situchan approved these changes Apr 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from luacmartins April 22, 2026 16:48

luacmartins approved these changes Apr 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

luacmartins merged commit d08e104 into Expensify:main Apr 23, 2026
45 of 48 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-04-23 #88633

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix: "Pay with personal account" does nothing in QAB expense flow#88390

Fix: "Pay with personal account" does nothing in QAB expense flow#88390
luacmartins merged 1 commit intoExpensify:mainfrom
nabi-ebrahimi:fix/expense-qab-pay-personal-account-no-action

nabi-ebrahimi commented Apr 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Apr 21, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Apr 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Conversation

nabi-ebrahimi commented Apr 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Apr 21, 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!

melvin-bot Bot commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Apr 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan Apr 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

situchan Apr 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

situchan commented Apr 22, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

nabi-ebrahimi commented Apr 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Apr 21, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

situchan commented Apr 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading