Fix: route Submit workspace Control-role import upgrade to Control plan#94859
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Ionatan Wiznia <iwiznia@users.noreply.github.com>
melvin-bot
Bot
requested review from
sobitneupane and
trjExpensify
and removed request for
a team
|
@sobitneupane 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] |
trjExpensify
left a comment
trjExpensify
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Upgrade so good, they did it twice. 👍
|
The only failing check is PR Reviewer Checklist / checklist — and it can't be fixed with a code change, so there's nothing for me to push. It fails for a process reason, not a code reason:
The job scans the PR's comments for a completed reviewer checklist and finds none. The two existing comments are an upgrade message and a Every other check on the PR is green (tests, typecheck, ESLint, Prettier, Storybook, perf, etc.). No action is needed from the code side — the reviewer just needs to fill out and post their checklist. |
|
@sobitneupane please review |
|
@iwiznia Do I need to be on any beta to create a Submit workspace. I was not able to create one on either OD or ND. Testing with: |
|
Yes, added that account to the beta now |
|
@iwiznia I am still unable to set the workspace plan type to Submit. Are there any specific steps I need to follow to configure it? |
|
Not sure what you mean... you don't set the plan to submit, it gets created when you select the |
Ahh got it. Thanks! |
sobitneupane
left a comment
sobitneupane
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 Issuessection 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
Testssection - I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the
QA stepssection - 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 verified the steps for local testing are in the
- 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.
toggleReportand notonIconClick). - 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)
- 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.
- 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 usingAvatarhave 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
thisproperly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}the methodthis.submitshould be bound tothisin the constructor) - Any internal methods bound to
thisare necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);ifthis.submitis never passed to a component event handler likeonClick) - 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
Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris 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
Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso 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
mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps. - 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.2026-07-03.at.19.28.43.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2026-07-03.at.19.31.50.mov
iOS: HybridApp
Screen.Recording.2026-07-03.at.19.42.27.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-07-03.at.19.37.38.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-07-03.at.19.12.47.mov
|
🚧 iwiznia has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here. |
|
✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release. |
|
🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
|
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/iwiznia in version: 9.4.29-0 🚀
|
|
🤖 I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site content under No help site changes are required. This PR is a one-line internal bug fix: it adds It corrects routing so behavior matches what's already expected — it does not add, remove, or rename any user-facing feature, plan, tab, setting, or button, and it doesn't change any documented workflow. The relevant help articles (e.g. Because no docs updates are needed, I did not create a draft help site PR. @iwiznia, please confirm you agree no help site changes are needed here. If you'd like an article updated anyway (e.g. to clarify plan requirements for importing roles), reply with |
|
QA team failed this PR with an original issue cc @iwiznia @trjExpensify @JS00001 @sobitneupane 1783457150809.bandicam_2026-07-08_03-43-54-521.mp4 |
|
I see, depends on what columns the CSV has the fix works or doesn't. |
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/iwiznia in version: 9.4.31-0 🚀
|
|
🤖 No help site changes required. This PR is a one-line internal bug fix in Why no docs are needed:
I reviewed the member-import and role-related articles under Since no help site content is affected, I did not create a draft docs PR. If you'd like a docs PR created anyway (e.g. to clarify that Control-only roles trigger a Control upgrade during import), let me know and I'll open one. @iwiznia, please confirm you agree no help site changes are needed. If you'd like a docs PR created regardless, reply and I'll open one. |
|
🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.31-0 🚀
Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry): |
7 participants
Explanation of Change
On a Submit workspace, importing a member spreadsheet that contains a Control-only role (e.g.
Auditor) sends the admin to the Upgrade page. After upgrading and importing again, the Upgrade page reopened instead of completing the import, even though the workspace had just been upgraded.Root cause: The import gate in
ImportedMembersPage.tsxredirects to the Upgrade page using thecontrolPolicyRolesfeature whenever the CSV has a Control-only role and the policy is not Control. For a Submit workspace, the upgrade routes throughupgradeSubmit(policy, targetType, …)wheretargetType = … ?? (feature has requiredPlan ? feature.requiredPlan : undefined) ?? CONST.POLICY.TYPE.TEAM(WorkspaceUpgradePage.tsx:182). ThecontrolPolicyRolesfeature had norequiredPlan, sotargetTypefell back toTEAM(Collect). The workspace was upgraded to Collect rather than Control, so on the next importisControlPolicy(policy)was stillfalseand the same gate re-fired — reopening the Upgrade page.Fix: Add
requiredPlan: CONST.POLICY.TYPE.CORPORATEto thecontrolPolicyRolesupgrade feature, matching the other Control-only features (rules,perDiem,hr, etc.). NowupgradeSubmitupgrades the workspace to Control,isControlPolicy(policy)becomestrue, and re-importing proceeds without showing the Upgrade page again.This implements the approved proposal. The feature was renamed from
auditortocontrolPolicyRolessince the proposal was written, but the root cause and fix are unchanged.Note: latent gap in the `approvals` branch (out of scope)
The same gate has a second branch that redirects via
CONST.UPGRADE_FEATURE_INTRO_MAPPING.approvals.aliaswhen the CSV contains Control-only columns (e.g.SubmitTo/ApproveTo) but no Control-only role. Theapprovalsfeature also lacksrequiredPlan, so that path can exhibit the same loop. The reported reproduction (CSV containing anAuditorrole) takes thecontrolPolicyRolesbranch, which this PR fixes. Theapprovalsfeature is reused in several other upgrade entry points (WorkspaceWorkflowsPage,ApprovalWorkflowEditor), so changing it is broader than the approved proposal and left out of scope.Fixed Issues
$ #92943
PROPOSAL: #92943 (comment)
Tests
// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.
Precondition:
Offline tests
No
QA Steps
// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.
See tests
PR Author Checklist
### Fixed Issuessection aboveTestssectionOffline stepssectionQA stepssectiontoggleReportand notonIconClick)Avatar, I verified the components usingAvatarare working as expected)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))npm run compress-svg)Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases)Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso the design team can review the changes.mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps.Screenshots/Videos
Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari