[HOLD for payment 2025-02-04] [HybridApp] Fix Not found page on shortcuts

[Julesssss]

INTERNAL!

Problem

Hmm it's not there... page shows when clicking on the static app shortcuts

Solution

Update the shortcut configuration for them to work correctly.

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @isabelastisser

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @isabelastisser (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[Julesssss]

Marcin (@war-in) has raised PRs already

[war-in]

Hi, I'm Marcin from Software Mansion and as Jules said I prepared PRs for this issue

[Julesssss]

PRs were merged today. We'll get these tested by QA in the next staging release.

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.89-8 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [HybridApp] Fix Not found page on shortcuts #53954

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2025-02-04. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @war-in does not require payment (Contractor)

[melvin-bot]

@Julesssss @isabelastisser @war-in The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[melvin-bot]

Skipping the payment summary for this issue since all the assignees are employees or vendors. If this is incorrect, please manually add the payment summary SO.

[isabelastisser]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production (eg. bug slipped through the normal regression and PR testing process on staging)
• 2b. Reported on staging (eg. found during regression or PR testing)
• 2d. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

  Link to comment:

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

  Link to discussion:

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue:

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[isabelastisser]

@Julesssss, do we need a regression test or can I close this one?

[isabelastisser]

bump @Julesssss

[Julesssss]

Do we need a regression test or can I close this one?

Yeah. QA should be able to improve the test wording, but something like this:

On Mobile and iOS

• Open the app through a shortcut (quick action)
• Verify that you were redirected to the correct page

[isabelastisser]

Thanks, Jules! All set.