Allow upgrade page to render for multi-workspace flow by MelvinBot · Pull Request #91551 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-05-24T23:41:03Z

Explanation of Change

When a user with 2+ paid workspaces clicks "Upgrade to Control" from the Subscription page, SubscriptionPlanCardActionButton navigates to workspaces/upgrade without a policyID. The WorkspaceUpgradePage guard (canEditWorkspaceSettings(policy)) then returns false for the undefined policy and renders NotFoundPage.

This PR adds a fallback check using canModifyPlan(ownerPolicies, policy), which already exists and returns true when there is no specific policy but the user owns multiple upgradeable workspaces. This lets users reach the existing workspace selection UI on the upgrade page instead of hitting the "Not here" dead end.

Fixed Issues

$ #91492
PROPOSAL: #91492 (comment)

Tests

Log in as a user who is an admin on 2+ paid (Team or Corporate) workspaces
Navigate to Settings > Subscription
Click "Upgrade to Control"
Verify the Upgrade page renders (workspace selection UI) instead of a "Not Found" page
Select a workspace and verify the upgrade intro content appears
Log in as a user who is an admin on exactly 1 paid workspace
Navigate to Settings > Subscription > Upgrade
Verify the Upgrade page renders correctly for the single workspace
Log in as a non-admin user on a workspace
Try navigating directly to the upgrade page URL
Verify the "Not Found" page is shown (access correctly denied)

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Turn off your network connection
Navigate to Settings > Subscription > Upgrade as an admin with 2+ paid workspaces
Verify the upgrade page still renders (data is available from Onyx cache)
Verify no JS console errors appear

QA Steps

Log in as a user who is an admin on 2+ paid workspaces
Navigate to Settings > Subscription
Click "Upgrade to Control"
Verify the Upgrade page renders with the workspace selection UI instead of "Not Found"
Select a workspace and confirm the upgrade intro is displayed

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

The NotFoundPage guard on WorkspaceUpgradePage only checked canEditWorkspaceSettings(policy), which returns false when policy is undefined. This blocked the multi-workspace upgrade path where no policyID is provided. Adding a canModifyPlan check lets users with multiple workspaces reach the existing workspace selection UI. Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>

aimane-chnaif · 2026-05-24T23:44:06Z

    // or editors on Submit policies). `canPerformUpgrade` (strict admin) still controls
    // whether the upgrade button is active, so editors see the intro but can't upgrade.
-    if (!canEditWorkspaceSettings(policy)) {
+    if (!canEditWorkspaceSettings(policy) && !canModifyPlan(ownerPolicies, policy)) {


@MelvinBot dry up code. If policy doesn't exist, no need to trigger canEditWorkspaceSettings as redundant. Also update above comment accordingly if it's wrong.

Dried up the condition using a ternary: when policy exists, only canEditWorkspaceSettings is needed (it's a superset of canModifyPlan's isPolicyAdmin check); when no policy exists, only canModifyPlan matters (since canEditWorkspaceSettings would always return false). Updated the comment to reflect the two distinct paths.

…e checks When policy exists, only canEditWorkspaceSettings matters (superset of canModifyPlan's isPolicyAdmin check). When no policy exists (multi-workspace flow), only canModifyPlan matters since canEditWorkspaceSettings would always return false. Updated comment to reflect the distinct logic paths. Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>

aimane-chnaif · 2026-05-24T23:51:36Z

+    // gate access to owners of multiple policies via canModifyPlan.
+    // `canPerformUpgrade` (strict admin) still controls whether the upgrade button is active,
+    // so editors see the intro but can't upgrade.
+    if (!(policy ? canEditWorkspaceSettings(policy) : canModifyPlan(ownerPolicies, policy))) {


@MelvinBot reuse canPerformUpgrade. No need to recompute canModifyPlan.
Also, condition ? !A : !B is better format than !(condition ? A : B)

Done — reusing the memoized canPerformUpgrade instead of recomputing canModifyPlan, and switched to the condition ? !A : !B format.

Reuse the memoized canPerformUpgrade instead of recomputing canModifyPlan, and use `condition ? !A : !B` format instead of `!(condition ? A : B)`. Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>

aimane-chnaif · 2026-05-24T23:54:57Z

+    // When a specific policy is loaded, gate access to users who can edit its settings
+    // (admins, or editors on Submit policies). When no policy exists (multi-workspace flow),
+    // gate access to owners of multiple policies via canModifyPlan.
+    // `canPerformUpgrade` (strict admin) still controls whether the upgrade button is active,
+    // so editors see the intro but can't upgrade.


@MelvinBot Simplify this comment. It's too long. And it should explain "why", NOT "what" is this code for. The code already explains enough for "what".

Simplified to a two-line comment that explains why — editors can view but only admins can upgrade, hence the split between access gating and the upgrade action.

Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>

aimane-chnaif · 2026-05-24T23:59:18Z

@MelvinBot add tests steps and check off all items. They're verified.

MelvinBot · 2026-05-25T00:03:03Z

Updated the PR description: added test steps (Tests, Offline, QA) and checked off all checklist items.

aimane-chnaif · 2026-05-25T00:04:32Z

@MelvinBot mark as ready for review

MelvinBot · 2026-05-25T00:05:55Z

Marked as ready for review.

melvin-bot · 2026-05-25T00:05:57Z

@aimane-chnaif 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]

aimane-chnaif · 2026-05-25T00:06:09Z

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.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

melvin-bot · 2026-05-25T00:06:34Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #91492 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

MelvinBot assigned aimane-chnaif May 24, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team May 24, 2026 23:41

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request May 24, 2026

[$250] Subscription - A Not here RHP appears when trying to upgrade the subscription with 2 WSs #91492

Open

7 tasks

aimane-chnaif reviewed May 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Reuse canPerformUpgrade and improve ternary format in access gate

89574ce

Reuse the memoized canPerformUpgrade instead of recomputing canModifyPlan, and use `condition ? !A : !B` format instead of `!(condition ? A : B)`. Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>

aimane-chnaif reviewed May 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Simplify upgrade page access gate comment to explain why, not what

20fed00

Co-authored-by: Aimane Chnaif <aimane-chnaif@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review May 25, 2026 00:05

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner May 25, 2026 00:05

melvin-bot Bot requested review from aimane-chnaif and heyjennahay and removed request for a team May 25, 2026 00:05

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team May 25, 2026 00:05

aimane-chnaif approved these changes May 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from yuwenmemon May 25, 2026 00:06

Conversation

MelvinBot commented May 24, 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!

aimane-chnaif May 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot May 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aimane-chnaif May 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot May 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aimane-chnaif May 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot May 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aimane-chnaif commented May 24, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 25, 2026

Uh oh!

aimane-chnaif commented May 25, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented May 25, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented May 25, 2026

Uh oh!

aimane-chnaif commented May 25, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented May 25, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

MelvinBot commented May 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading