Skip to content

Prevent tasks from inheriting a group chatType and showing the Not here page#97019

Draft
MobileMage wants to merge 4 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
MobileMage:MobileMage/fix-96421-task-leave-notfound
Draft

Prevent tasks from inheriting a group chatType and showing the Not here page#97019
MobileMage wants to merge 4 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
MobileMage:MobileMage/fix-96421-task-leave-notfound

Conversation

@MobileMage

@MobileMage MobileMage commented Jul 25, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

When an assignee opens a task created inside a group chat, the backend returns the task report carrying the parent group chat's chatType (for example group). getChatType passed that value straight through, so every chatType-based classifier misfired for the task. isRootGroupChat returned true, because its thread exclusion uses isChatThread (which needs type === CHAT, while a task's type is TASK), so a task thread slips past the root check.

Once the task counts as a root group chat, canLeaveChat returns true, so a Leave row shows on the task details page, and leaveChat runs the destructive leaveGroupChat instead of leaveRoom. leaveGroupChat nulls the report's reportID; the focused details RHP wraps in withReportOrNotFound, whose gate flips to shouldShowNotFoundPage the moment reportID goes null, so the page renders the full "Not here" screen before the deferred dismissal moves the user away.

This PR fixes the misclassification at its one choke point, getChatType: a task no longer reports an inherited chat type unless it is the one the client supports (POLICY_ADMINS, used for #admins task routing). isGroupChat, isRootGroupChat, and canLeaveChat then return false for the task, the Leave row disappears, the destructive path becomes unreachable, and the details page renders the task layout. Real group chats (type: CHAT) and #admins tasks stay unchanged. Unit tests cover this in tests/actions/TaskTest.ts.

Fixed Issues

$ #96421
PROPOSAL: #96421 (comment)

Tests

Preconditions: User A, User B, and User C are members of a group chat.

  1. Log in as User B and navigate to the group chat.
  2. Create a new task within the group chat.
  3. Assign the task to User A.
  4. As User B, leave the group chat.
  5. As User A, go to Reports > Task.
  6. Open the task and go to the details page.
  7. Verify the "Not here" error page is not displayed, and the details page shows the task layout with no Leave row.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

No offline-specific behavior. The classification reads local Onyx data only.

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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 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 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

Videos will be added in a few hours.

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

@MobileMage
Prevent tasks from inheriting non-admins chatType classification
38a9db2 
A task inside a group chat is returned by the backend carrying the
parent's chatType (e.g. group). getChatType now drops that inherited
value for non-#admins tasks, so isGroupChat/isRootGroupChat/canLeaveChat
no longer misclassify the task, the bogus Leave row and destructive
leaveGroupChat path disappear, and the details page stops flashing the
Not-here page. Keeps the intentional POLICY_ADMINS inheritance.
Fixes Expensify#96421.
@MobileMage MobileMage mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2026
Open
7 tasks
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 25, 2026 •
edited by github-actions Bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts 86.18% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
src/pages/inbox/ReportNavigateAwayHandler.tsx 67.94% <ø> (ø)
... and 47 files with indirect coverage changes

@MobileMage
Keep Concierge redirect for removed tasks and pin leave surface in tests
1920401 
Tasks no longer classify as their parent's chat type, so a wiped
group-inherited task stopped matching isGroupChat in
isRemovalExpectedForReportType and the user would stay on the Not-here
page instead of redirecting. Treat task removals as expected for the
task type itself. Also pin canLeaveChat(task) === false and add a
policy-room-inherited task case to the classification tests.
@MobileMage
Reword test comment to satisfy spellcheck
12cab55
@MobileMage
Make the room-task canLeaveChat assertion discriminating
17f2667 
Give the fixture a visible participant so the assertion exercises the
classification path rather than passing through hidden-membership.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@MobileMage MobileMage

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@MobileMage