Fix: return to confirmation page after creating a category from the confirm step

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Fixes a regression from #92161 (navigation migration part 2). When opening Category → Add category from the expense confirmation step and saving a new category, the app returned the user to the category list instead of the confirmation page.

During the migration, the create-category page's back button was simplified to Navigation.goBack(backTo), and the "Add category" navigation was changed to pass Navigation.getActiveRoute() (the category list page) as backTo. Because the save handler also uses Navigation.goBack(backTo), saving incorrectly landed back on the category list.

This change passes the page's computed backPath (the confirmation step) instead of Navigation.getActiveRoute(), so saving a newly created category returns the user to the confirmation page — matching the behavior of selecting an existing category, which already uses goBack(backPath).

🤖 This is an AI-generated PR drafted by MelvinBot at the request of huult, who diagnosed the root cause and provided the exact fix in #93226. The human co-author should review the diff and complete the Tests/QA sections before marking it ready for review.

Fixed Issues

$ #93226
PROPOSAL: #93226 (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.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

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.

• 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 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 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)
• 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
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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.
• 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.
• 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[MelvinBot]

I looked into the failing checks. There's no code fix to push — the only failing check is PR Author Checklist / checklist, which fails for a non-code reason.

Why it fails: the PR Author Checklist requires every box in the PR description to be checked, and those are human-only items (the Tests / QA sections are also still TODO). MelvinBot can't tick them on your behalf. The checklist job also notes it "could not verify engineering membership for MelvinBot" since the bot opened the PR.

Every substantive check passes: typecheck, all 8 test jobs, Storybook tests, Prettier, React Compiler Compliance, knip, unused styles, spellcheck, and all build jobs. ESLint and the perf comparison were still running at the time of this comment but the change is a single-line navigation argument swap, so no code issue is expected there.

To get the checklist passing: as the human co-author, fill out the Tests / QA sections and check the boxes in the PR description.

[huult]

@MelvinBot Please check the ESLint failure and complete the checklist.

Test step:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Click + > Create expense > Manual.
4. Enter amount > Next.
5. On confirm page, click Category.
6. Click Add category button.
7. Enter any name and save it.
8. Verify that App will return to confirm page.

[MelvinBot]

The failing ESLint check is unrelated to this PR — it's a repo-wide eslint-seatbelt baseline drift on main, so I'm not pushing a code change here.

What's failing

ESLint fails in tests/unit/ReportSecondaryActionUtilsTest.ts with:

[eslint-seatbelt]: There are 466 errors of this type, but only 450 are allowed.
Remove 16 to turn these errors into warnings  @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion

The seatbelt baseline at config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv:1821 budgets 450 for that file+rule, but the file now produces 466.

Why it's not this PR

This PR changes a single line in DynamicIOURequestStepCategoryPage.tsx — a navigation argument. It doesn't touch the failing test file or the seatbelt baseline. The branch is already up to date with main, so the count comes entirely from main.

Evidence it's repo-wide

Other unrelated open PRs are failing the exact same check for the exact same file/rule (466 vs 450):

• fix: prevent Enter save from reopening tax rate value field #93246
• fix: polar chart label spacing, text clarity #93245
• Fix distance rate auto-selection and tax sync on date change #93237

What needs to happen

This is a main-branch fix, not something to patch in this PR. The seatbelt baseline for ReportSecondaryActionUtilsTest.ts is stale relative to the current code (likely a merged PR raised the no-unsafe-type-assertion count without updating the baseline). Someone needs to either re-tighten/update config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv on main or reduce the assertions in that test file. Once that lands on main and this branch picks it up, the check will pass — no change to this PR is required.

The only other failing check, PR Author Checklist / checklist, just needs the human co-author (huult) to fill out the Tests/QA sections and tick the boxes.

[huult]

@MelvinBot please complete the checklist and mark it's ready.

Test step:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Click + > Create expense > Manual.
4. Enter amount > Next.
5. On confirm page, click Category.
6. Click Add category button.
7. Enter any name and save it.
8. Verify that App will return to confirm page.

[huult]

@MelvinBot open this pr

[MelvinBot]

The failing ESLint check is unrelated to this PR

TL;DR: The ESLint check failure is a pre-existing, repo-wide eslint-seatbelt drift in a test file this PR doesn't touch. It is not caused by the one-line navigation change here, and bumping the seatbelt budget does not belong in this PR.

What's failing: @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion in tests/unit/ReportSecondaryActionUtilsTest.ts — 466 errors actual vs 450 allowed in config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv:1821. eslint-seatbelt runs frozen in CI and intentionally fails on any count increase.

Evidence it's unrelated to this PR:

• This PR changes only one line in DynamicIOURequestStepCategoryPage.tsx. The test file and the seatbelt .tsv are byte-identical to main.
• All the failing assertions are Mock<any, any, any> casts inside that test file — nothing imports from the changed IOU page.
• Other currently-open PRs (e.g. Expensify/App#93245, Expensify/App#93243) fail this exact same check, confirming it's a main-level issue affecting every open PR.

Where the drift came from

Expensify/App#91753 (merged 2026-06-10) added 165 lines to ReportSecondaryActionUtilsTest.ts, including 16 new Mock<any, any, any> assertions, but did not update config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv to match (450 → 466). Since CI freezes the seatbelt, the stale budget now fails on every branch.

Recommended fix (separate PR, not this one): On main, run SEATBELT_INCREASE=@typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion ./scripts/lint.sh tests/unit/ReportSecondaryActionUtilsTest.ts to re-baseline the budget (or reduce the unsafe casts in that test), and commit the updated .tsv. I've intentionally not pushed that here so this navigation fix doesn't absorb unrelated test-lint debt. Once main is re-baselined, merge main into this branch and the check will pass.

---

On the PR Author Checklist: those items are human attestations ("I tested on all platforms", "I verified there are no console errors", etc.) and the Tests/QA sections require a person to describe what they ran. Per MelvinBot's guidelines I don't check these off or fill them in on a human's behalf — huult, as the human co-author, should complete those before marking the PR ready for review. (The checklist status check is informational and resolves once those boxes are ticked.)

[huult]

@MelvinBot please open this PR

[melvin-bot]

@thelullabyy 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]

[huult]

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 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

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-11.at.13.01.12.mov

[huult]

LGTM.

@mjasikowski The ESLint failure doesn't appear to be caused by this PR. Do we still need to ask Melvin to fix it?

[MelvinBot]

This PR is already open and marked Ready for review (it's not a draft). No action needed on my end to open it.

Heads up before reviewers dig in: the ESLint check is still red, but it's a pre-existing, repo-wide seatbelt drift unrelated to this change — it fails identically on every open PR. And the PR Author Checklist still has unchecked boxes that you'll need to complete as the human co-author.

[huult]

@MelvinBot please complete the checklist

Test step:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Click + > Create expense > Manual.
4. Enter amount > Next.
5. On confirm page, click Category.
6. Click Add category button.
7. Enter any name and save it.
8. Verify that App will return to confirm page.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a0aa9869b8

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Preserve category picker when cancelling category creation

When a user opens Add category from the category picker and then presses the create page's back button without saving, this now passes the confirmation route as backTo; IOURequestStepCategoryCreate uses that same param in onBackButtonPress={() => Navigation.goBack(backTo)}, so canceling skips the category picker and returns to confirmation. The previous Navigation.getActiveRoute() kept cancel/back on the category list, while only the save path needs to return to confirmation, so these two destinations need to stay separate.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[huult]

checking...

[huult]

Preserve category picker when cancelling category creation

When a user opens Add category from the category picker and then presses the create page's back button without saving, this now passes the confirmation route as backTo; IOURequestStepCategoryCreate uses that same param in onBackButtonPress={() => Navigation.goBack(backTo)}, so canceling skips the category picker and returns to confirmation. The previous Navigation.getActiveRoute() kept cancel/back on the category list, while only the save path needs to return to confirmation, so these two destinations need to stay separate.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@MelvinBot Please check Codex's comment.

[MelvinBot]

I ran your test steps on the web build and the fix works correctly. ✅

Verified flow: Workspace chat → + → Create expense → Manual → enter amount → Next → Category → Add category → enter name → save. After saving the new category, the app lands on the expense confirmation page ("Confirm details") with the newly created category pre-selected — not the category list. This is exactly the regression this PR fixes.

Verification details

• Landed URL after save: …/create/submit/confirmation/1/2942971994327060 (the confirmation step).
• Confirmation page shows Amount $50.00, Category TestCategory123 (the new category, auto-selected), and the Create $50.00 expense button.
• Only console messages were expected dev-environment errors (api/Ping 404, www.expensify.com.dev DNS) — no errors from the changed code.

---

On completing the PR Author Checklist itself: I can't tick those boxes for you. They're personal attestations by the human author — several of them certify that you ran the change on Android Native, iOS Native, mWeb, and Desktop and personally verified no console errors. I only exercised the web build, so checking the all-platforms boxes on your behalf would be a false attestation, which is exactly what MelvinBot is not allowed to do. You can use the verification + screenshot above as evidence toward the Tests/QA sections, but the checkboxes need to be completed by you as the co-author.

(The red ESLint check remains the pre-existing, repo-wide seatbelt drift — unrelated to this change.)

[MelvinBot]

⏱️ Ran out of time before I could finish. This usually means the task was too complex or I got stuck exploring. Please try again with a more specific request or post in #melvinbot-ai.

Run details

[MelvinBot]

Codex is right — this PR fixes Save but leaves Cancel/Back pointing at the wrong screen

Verdict: Valid concern. The create-category page uses the same backTo param for both saving and the back button, so changing backTo to the confirmation route fixes the save path but also sends cancel/back to confirmation instead of back to the category picker. That's a behavior change from the original (pre-migration) design.

Why both paths move together:

• Save handler: IOURequestStepCategoryCreate.tsx:155 → Navigation.goBack(backTo)
• Back button: IOURequestStepCategoryCreate.tsx:166 → Navigation.goBack(backTo)

goBack(backTo) is not a passive fallback — it calls goUp, which pops/replaces the stack to land exactly on backTo. So with backTo = backPath (confirmation), pressing back without saving pops past the picker straight to confirmation.

Evidence this is a regression, not the intended design

The original behavior (before the navigation migration in Expensify/App#92161) kept the two destinations separate — the back button went to the category picker, while save went to confirmation:

// pre-#92161 back button (returned to the picker):
onBackButtonPress={() => Navigation.goBack(ROUTES.MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_CATEGORY.getRoute(action, iouType, transactionID, reportID, backTo, reportActionID))}

Expensify/App#92161 simplified that to Navigation.goBack(backTo), collapsing back + save onto one param. The linked issue Expensify/App#93226 only requires the save path to return to confirmation; it says nothing about cancel. So the picker→confirmation jump on cancel is a side effect, matching what Codex flagged.

Path	Pre-migration	This PR (backTo = backPath)
Save new category	Confirmation ✅	Confirmation ✅
Back/cancel	Category picker ✅	Confirmation ⚠️ (skips picker)

Recommended fix: Keep this PR's change to backPath for the save path, but restore the back button on IOURequestStepCategoryCreate.tsx:166 so cancel returns to the category picker (i.e. don't reuse the confirmation backTo for the back button), mirroring the pre-#92161 behavior. Note that file is shared by other entry points, so the cleanest approach is to navigate back to the category-picker step explicitly rather than to a hardcoded confirmation route.

huult — want me to implement that? If so, reply @MelvinBot implement the back-button fix and I'll push it to this branch.

[JmillsExpensify]

LGTM

[mjasikowski]

@huult check #93247 (comment)
and merge main, I think ESLint will stop failing after that

[huult]

@MelvinBot Please close this PR

[huult]

@MelvinBot Please close this PR

[MelvinBot]

Closed this PR as requested by huult.