Refactor money report header secondary actions to use dynamic verify account

[jmusial]

Explanation of Change

4th out fo 4 PR that are originating from #90171. Depends on #94177

This PR migrates MoneyReportHeaderSecondaryActionsInner to use dynamic verify path and cleans up after the migration.

Fixed Issues

$ #72980
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Create a fresh account, do not enter magic code during onboarding
2. Create workspace
3. Submit expense to workspace
4. Submit then put expense on hold
5. In workspace -> workflows, disable approvals and submissions
6. Back to the expense Remove hold should be primary action and Pay should be in secondary dropdown
7. Click `Pay with business account
8. Verify that a magic code can be entered and then redirect back to expense report happens

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Same as tests

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 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 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 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.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-06-25.at.16.08.08.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-06-25.at.16.13.10.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-06-25.at.16.02.06.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-25.at.16.13.49.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-25.at.15.24.35.mov

[jmusial]

@codex review

[codecov]

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/ROUTES.ts	20.68% <ø> (-0.20%)	⬇️
src/SCREENS.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/hooks/useSelectionModePayment.ts	61.76% <ø> (ø)
...gation/AppNavigator/ModalStackNavigators/index.tsx	6.56% <ø> (-0.09%)	⬇️
...on/AppNavigator/Navigators/RightModalNavigator.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...avigation/linkingConfig/RELATIONS/SEARCH_TO_RHP.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/Navigation/linkingConfig/config.ts	76.92% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/PaymentUtils.ts	79.79% <ø> (-1.95%)	⬇️
...eaderActions/MoneyReportHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx	0.68% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

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

Reviewed commit: 08d9ae77da

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]

@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]

[JmillsExpensify]

Product review not required.

[jmusial]

@aimane-chnaif kind bump

[aimane-chnaif]

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.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.mov

[aimane-chnaif]

@codex review

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Review: LGTM — clean, behavior-preserving refactor. No blocking issues found.

This migrates the unvalidated-account redirect in MoneyReportHeaderSecondaryActionsInner from the manual per-context handleUnvalidatedAccount switch to the dynamic verify path, and removes the now-dead static routes/screens/pages. I verified the migration end-to-end:

• Condition is equivalent. The new guard uses iouPaymentType !== CONST.IOU.PAYMENT_TYPE.ELSEWHERE (MoneyReportHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx:402-406), which is exactly the old EXPENSIFY || VBBA set — PAYMENT_TYPE only has ELSEWHERE, EXPENSIFY, VBBA (CONST/index.ts:3654-3658).
• Consistent with the existing pattern. useSelectionModePayment already guards with the identical check before calling selectPaymentType (useSelectionModePayment.ts:144-145), so dropping the isUserValidated param from selectPaymentType is safe for both remaining callers.
• Coverage preserved. DYNAMIC_ROUTES.VERIFY_ACCOUNT lists entry screens for all four contexts the old function branched on (report, expense report, search report, search money-request report) (ROUTES.ts:88-103).
• No dangling references. Grepped the whole src/ tree for every removed symbol (REPORT_VERIFY_ACCOUNT, EXPENSE_REPORT_VERIFY_ACCOUNT, SEARCH_*_VERIFY_ACCOUNT, handleUnvalidatedAccount, ReportVerifyAccountNavigatorParamList, and the 4 deleted page components) — zero hits. Cleanup is complete.
• All 30+ CI checks pass; Codex found no issues.

One minor thing worth a sanity check (non-blocking)

The redirect ordering changed slightly. Previously the unvalidated check ran inside selectPaymentType, after the billing-restriction guard (PaymentUtils.ts:230-243). It now runs before selectPaymentType. So a user who is both in a billing-restricted grace period and unvalidated will now be routed to verify-account first instead of the restricted-action page.

This matches the ordering already used in useSelectionModePayment, so it looks intentional/consistent rather than a regression — just flagging it in case that precedence matters for the edge case.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Can't wait for the next one!

Reviewed commit: 728053ab11

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".

[github-actions]

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

[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.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #94594.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-206a00d89bd-9f3daf7-2aee42f68a70ba689eabf0e76b5cd9a6e40d425c/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-206a00d-9f3daf7-172bcd8e564fc53b546bd067f93588db8249eb22/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://94594.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.28-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR and no updates to the help site files under App/docs/articles are needed, so I did not create a draft PR.

Why: This is a purely internal code refactor with no user-facing behavior change. It migrates MoneyReportHeaderSecondaryActionsInner to the shared dynamic verify-account path and removes the now-redundant, context-specific verify-account routes/screens/pages (REPORT_VERIFY_ACCOUNT, EXPENSE_REPORT_VERIFY_ACCOUNT, SEARCH_REPORT_VERIFY_ACCOUNT, SEARCH_MONEY_REQUEST_REPORT_VERIFY_ACCOUNT) along with the handleUnvalidatedAccount helper and the isUserValidated param in PaymentUtils.

What I checked

• The verify-account experience itself is unchanged — an unvalidated user paying via a non-ELSEWHERE method is still routed to the magic-code verification flow (now via the single DYNAMIC_ROUTES.VERIFY_ACCOUNT path instead of four route variants).
• Changes are limited to navigation config (ROUTES.ts, SCREENS.ts, types.ts, linking config, navigators), PaymentUtils.ts, a hook, a component, and unit tests. No copy, labels, tab names, settings, or feature behavior changed.
• Help site articles document user-facing features and workflows, not internal navigation routing — nothing in these articles describes the removed route architecture.

@jmusial, since no user-facing behavior changed, there's no linked help site PR to review. If you believe a doc update is warranted, let me know what behavior it should cover and I'll create the draft PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.28-2 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android