Redirect non-micro companies on web #55514

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-21T10:47:59Z

Explanation of Change

PR adds web part of redirect to Expensify Classic (for non-micro companies, >=11 employees)

Fixed Issues

$ #53906
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Make sure the account you create is on the hybridAppRedirect beta! (@applause may not yet be added, so please try +@trj.chat if you are not initially being redirected to NewDot after account creation

A) Flow for 11+ accounts:

Create a new account, you should be redirected to NewDot
On first onboarding modal press "Manage my team's expenses"
Press any company size that includes 11+ employees
After a short time redirect to Expensify Classic should happen
tryNewDot NVP should have dismissed key set to true

B) Flow for less than 11 employees:

Create a new account, you should be redirected to NewDot
On first onboarding modal press "Manage my team's expenses"
Press first option on the list (less than 11 employees)
Onboarding accounting modal should be displayed
tryNewDot NVP should have dismissed key set to false

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as tests, but last step in both flows can be omitted

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.demo.micro.mov

android.demo.other.than.micro.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.mweb.+11.mov

android.mweb.11.mov

iOS: Native

demo.iOS.1.mov

iOS.demo.2.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.mweb.11+.mov

iosmweb.11.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.11+.mov

demo.web.less.than.11.mov

MacOS: Desktop

NOTE: Lack of redirect on desktop is intentional

desktop.11+.mov

desktop.11.mov

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-21T11:03:57Z

@trjExpensify it seems like we are not able to set NVP tryNewDot directly from New Expensify codebase. I don't have access to Expensify Classic web codebase. Can we ask internal engineer to take a look at this issue? Perhaps there is a quick workaround.

In HybridApp scenario we set NVP tryNewDot in the OldDot code right after transition from NewDot. I'm not sure if the same logic will be the best for web.

I'm also curious why button Switch to Expensify Classic on HybridApp sets NVP dissmised value to true, but on web we do not have such requirement 🤔 Is it intentional or it is a bug?

trjExpensify · 2025-01-21T20:18:39Z

@AndrewGable @Julesssss any chance you can help @mateuuszzzzz here?

I'm also curious why button Switch to Expensify Classic on HybridApp sets NVP dissmised value to true, but on web we do not have such requirement 🤔 Is it intentional or it is a bug?

What was the user's NVP value prior to clicking "Switch to Expensify Classic" in both attempts here?

Julesssss · 2025-01-22T02:58:34Z

it seems like we are not able to set NVP tryNewDot directly from New Expensify codebase.

What do you mean exactly? Is this because we then migrate away and the request isn't completed in time?

but on web we do not have such requirement 🤔 Is it intentional or it is a bug?

Sounds like bug to me, can't recall a case we'd keep it despite a manual switch... Lets see what Tom is thinking though

trjExpensify · 2025-01-22T03:13:27Z

@Julesssss there's basically two "page" variations you see in the Switch to Classic flow.

If you have no tryNewDot NVP or classicRedirect.dismissed: true we leave your NVP as is, and show you a reminder that you don't need to do this flow to visit expensify.com before taking you to Classic.
If you have classicRedirect.dismissed: false, we show you the page to book a call and fill out a survey first. We change your NVP to dismissed:true when you switch.

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-22T07:33:11Z

What do you mean exactly? Is this because we then migrate away and the request isn't completed in time?

According to your question @Julesssss, now I simply call this function in code Link.openOldDotLink(CONST.OLDDOT_URLS.INBOX, true);. After redirect to Old Experience I check NVP value in console and we don't have dismissed key there.

Even when I click button (that navigates you to two "page" variations which @trjExpensify mentioned) dismissed key is undefined. I would expect command SwitchToOldDot to change this NVP when we perform a redirect, but I'm not familiar with web part as much as with HybridApp part 😅

In other words, it seems that we don’t have an API command on the NewDot side to set it. In fact, on HybridApp, we never set it via NewDot but rather via OldDot.

I also double-checked and disabled the redirect to see if waiting for the API commands to finish would change the value of NVP, but it had no effect.

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-22T07:41:42Z

@AndrewGable @Julesssss any chance you can help @mateuuszzzzz here?

I'm also curious why button Switch to Expensify Classic on HybridApp sets NVP dissmised value to true, but on web we do not have such requirement 🤔 Is it intentional or it is a bug?

What was the user's NVP value prior to clicking "Switch to Expensify Classic" in both attempts here?

@trjExpensify I was testing onboarding flow on your emails tom+{something}@trj.chat. All this time the value of NVP remains unchanged and has the following form:

trjExpensify · 2025-01-22T11:33:35Z

Just to confirm, is this the flow?

Sign-up on the HybridApp (with an account on the hybridAppRedirect beta)
Put in the NewDot experience
classicRedirect.dismissed is null
Switch to Classic
classicRedirect.dismissed remains null

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-22T11:35:17Z

Just to confirm, is this the flow?

Sign-up on the HybridApp (with an account on the hybridAppRedirect beta)

Put in the NewDot experience

classicRedirect.dismissed is null

Switch to Classic

classicRedirect.dismissed remains null

On HybridApp it works fine. I only have issue with Web and mWeb

So my flow is:

Sign-up on the web
classicRedirect.dismissed is undefined
Switch to Expensify Classic
classicRedirect.dismissed remains undefined

On NewDot web I check it in console with Onyx.get('nvp_tryNewDot') on OldDot web: NVP.get('tryNewDot')

trjExpensify · 2025-01-22T11:38:39Z

If so, that looks like the same bug I discovered with organic new.expensify.com sign-ups. Admittedly, not common to sign-up on NewDot directly, but nevertheless, they should be set to classicRedirect.dismissed: false on sign-up. @Julesssss has fixed that in this Web PR that hit staging yesterday.

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-22T11:44:46Z

If so, that looks like the same bug I discovered with organic new.expensify.com sign-ups. Admittedly, not common to sign-up on NewDot directly, but nevertheless, they should be set to classicRedirect.dismissed: false on sign-up. @Julesssss has fixed that in this Web PR that hit staging yesterday.

Is it going to fix issue with NVP value that remains unchanged after redirect from NewDot web to OldDot web?

And one more thing: Should I use SwitchToOldDot API command during redirect from NewDot onboarding in this case? Now we only use this command in Switch to Classic flow.

This command expects arguments, but they're optional

type SwitchToOldDotParams = {
    reason?: ValueOf<typeof CONST.EXIT_SURVEY.REASONS>;
    surveyResponse?: string;
};

I'm not convinced that this command changes NVP value 😅

trjExpensify · 2025-01-22T12:18:09Z

remains unchanged after redirect from NewDot web to OldDot web?

That's expected, unless the NVP of the account that switched was set to dismissed:false. In which case, it gets changed to dismissed:true.

So Jules' PR is fixing the fact that a newDot sign-up doesn't have a dismissed value at all, whereas it should be set to dismissed: false. After which, switching to Classic will update it to dismissed: true as designed and working on prod.

Feel free to follow these steps to check yourself:

Go to expensify.com > Choose the 2-9 signUpQualifier > sign-up
You'll be redirected to NewDot and classicRedirect.dismissed: false is set
In NewDot, go to Settings > "Switch to Expensify Classic"
Click "No thanks" on the offer of a call > complete the survey > click "Switch to Expensify Classic"
Check the console for g_account.nameValuePairs.tryNewDot > classicRedirect.dismissed: true is set.

2025-01-22_12-12-28.mp4

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-22T12:19:58Z

remains unchanged after redirect from NewDot web to OldDot web?

That's expected, unless the NVP of the account that switched was set to dismissed:false. In which case, it gets changed to dismissed:true.

So Jules' PR is fixing the fact that a newDot sign-up doesn't have a dismissed value at all, whereas it should be set to dismissed: false. After which, switching to Classic will update it to dismissed: true as designed and working on prod.

Feel free to follow these steps to check yourself:

Go to expensify.com > Choose the 2-9 signUpQualifier > sign-up

You'll be redirected to NewDot and classicRedirect.dismissed: false is set

In NewDot, go to Settings > "Switch to Expensify Classic"

Click "No thanks" on the offer of a call > complete the survey > click "Switch to Expensify Classic"

Check the console for g_account.nameValuePairs.tryNewDot > classicRedirect.dismissed: true is set.

2025-01-22_12-12-28.mp4

Thanks! I will re-test it with fixes from staging 😅

trjExpensify · 2025-01-22T12:23:34Z

Thanks! I will re-test it with fixes from staging 😅

The above video is a prod test. The point being, it's working correctly to update the NVP value only when classicRedirect.dismissed: false is set, as designed. The problem Jules is addressing (which is on staging) is that an organic sign-up on new.expensify.com wasn't having a dismissed value set at all.

And one more thing: Should I use SwitchToOldDot API command during redirect from NewDot onboarding in this case? Now we only use this command in Switch to Classic flow.

I'll let @Julesssss pass judgement on this btw, but it sounds wrong to me to use that API command here as it's not the user driven "Switch to Expensify Classic" flow.

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-22T13:03:13Z

I'll let @Julesssss pass judgement on this btw, but it sounds wrong to me to use that API command here as it's not the user driven "Switch to Expensify Classic" flow.

I think we need to create another API command in this case if we want to change the dismissed value in this new flow

Julesssss · 2025-01-23T03:05:59Z

I would expect command SwitchToOldDot to change this NVP when we perform a redirect, but I'm not familiar with web part as much as with HybridApp part 😅

Yeah, it's a fair assumption. OpenOldDotLink likely was built for a different redirection flow, so I can't say it was a bug. It's not sure it's the best place to start setting the NVP.

And one more thing: Should I use SwitchToOldDot API command during redirect from NewDot onboarding in this case? Now we only use this command in Switch to Classic flow.

switchToOldDot command will return early without a survey response or reason, so it won't set the NVP correctly as-is.

I think we need to create another API command in this case if we want to change the dismissed value in this new flow

Yes I agree. I can create something simple and similar to switchToOldDot|OpenOldDotLink, or update switchToOldDot depending on it's internal uses.

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-23T13:06:23Z

I would expect command SwitchToOldDot to change this NVP when we perform a redirect, but I'm not familiar with web part as much as with HybridApp part 😅

Yeah, it's a fair assumption. OpenOldDotLink likely was built for a different redirection flow, so I can't say it was a bug. It's not sure it's the best place to start setting the NVP.

And one more thing: Should I use SwitchToOldDot API command during redirect from NewDot onboarding in this case? Now we only use this command in Switch to Classic flow.

switchToOldDot command will return early without a survey response or reason, so it won't set the NVP correctly as-is.

I think we need to create another API command in this case if we want to change the dismissed value in this new flow

Yes I agree. I can create something simple and similar to switchToOldDot|OpenOldDotLink, or update switchToOldDot depending on it's internal uses.

I think simple API command that takes no arguments and sets dismissed value to true should be enough 😅

Julesssss · 2025-01-23T19:04:18Z

Okay, I'll update switchToOldDot so that it doesn't return if no survey reason is provided. PR is in review.

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-01-27T13:00:18Z

Okay, I'll update switchToOldDot so that it doesn't return if no survey reason is provided. PR is in review.

Thanks! I'll test it once it's on staging

anmurali · 2025-02-19T19:58:19Z

https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/45472 is on production
@mateuuszzzzz can we pick this PR back up?

Julesssss · 2025-02-19T20:32:50Z

Expensify/Web-Expensify#45472 is on production @mateuuszzzzz can we pick this PR back up?

@mateuuszzzzz I see you made some updates today. I'm able to help with any early testing or debugging tomorrow, just let me know!

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-02-21T13:11:08Z

I think this is done. I only have two questions regarding API design and task requirements.

Should I still call completeOnboarding in case where company size is 11+ and we redirect to OldDot? I.e. do we complete onboarding in this new API command automatically or simply change dismissed value?
Should I disable redirect to OldDot and new API call on desktop app?

trjExpensify · 2025-02-21T13:20:24Z

Should I still call completeOnboarding in case where company size is 11+ and we redirect to OldDot? I.e. do we complete onboarding in this new API command automatically or simply change dismissed value?

Hm, we can ask @Julesssss to confirm, but I think we do want to complete onboarding - because otherwise, if they come back to NewDot at some point in the future, we'd end up re-showing the onboarding modal if hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow isn't true, right?

Should I disable redirect to OldDot and new API call on desktop app?

It's super unlikely a new user has the desktop app installed, but not impossible. Let's not write logic to disable the redirect, let's just open OldDot in a browser tab.

mateuuszzzzz · 2025-02-21T13:38:39Z

Hm, we can ask @Julesssss to confirm, but I think we do want to complete onboarding - because otherwise, if they come back to NewDot at some point in the future, we'd end up re-showing the onboarding modal if hasCompletedGuidedSetupFlow isn't true, right?

Exactly, users would see onboarding modal so we definitely need to complete it somewhere.

melvin-bot · 2025-02-21T15:00:03Z

@suneox 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]

github-actions · 2025-02-21T15:59:44Z

🚧 @Julesssss has triggered a test hybrid app build. You can view the workflow run here.

github-actions · 2025-02-21T16:28:12Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, Desktop, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/android//index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.amazonaws.com/ios//index.html

Desktop 💻	Web 🕸️
N/A	N/A
N/A	N/A

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

src/pages/OnboardingEmployees/BaseOnboardingEmployees.tsx

Julesssss

I'm having trouble with the initial redirection to NewDot and I always land in OldDot, which makes it impossible to verify these changes. I have a feeling a backend change has broken the initial redirection 😕

I'm looking further into this.

Julesssss · 2025-02-21T18:48:46Z

UGH of course. I forgot it's locked behind a beta. -- updating test instructions to remind myself.

Julesssss

Working nicely

Julesssss · 2025-02-21T19:13:28Z

Micro company remains in NewDot

hybridredirect-micro.mp4

Mid sized company redirected back to classic

hybridredirect-medium.mp4

Individual remains in NewDot

hybridredirect-personal.mp4

iOS

Julesssss · 2025-02-21T19:13:49Z

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 tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
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: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

OSBotify · 2025-02-21T19:44:56Z

✋ 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 · 2025-02-21T23:10:47Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.1.4-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	failure ❌
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	success ✅
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	success ✅

github-actions · 2025-02-24T19:42:23Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/chiragsalian in version: 9.1.4-4 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	true ❌
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	failure ❌
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	failure ❌

Redirect non-micro companies on web

2c9d81f

trjExpensify mentioned this pull request Jan 22, 2025

[HybridApp] Launch the NewDot experience on HybridApp for new sign-ups on native mobile #45548

Open

mateuuszzzzz added 2 commits February 19, 2025 12:02

Merge branch 'main' into redirect-non-micro-companies-on-web

72a0f30

Add new API

bdfab74

mateuuszzzzz added 2 commits February 21, 2025 13:21

Use new API for non micro company sizes

3f11ddc

Merge branch 'main' into redirect-non-micro-companies-on-web

4c87ec9

Do not redirect on desktop

df0bb41

Fix behavior on desktop

69a2d5a

mateuuszzzzz marked this pull request as ready for review February 21, 2025 14:59

mateuuszzzzz requested a review from a team as a code owner February 21, 2025 14:59

melvin-bot bot requested review from suneox and removed request for a team February 21, 2025 15:00

Julesssss added the Ready To Build label Feb 21, 2025

trjExpensify assigned mateuuszzzzz Feb 21, 2025

trjExpensify requested a review from Julesssss February 21, 2025 17:09

Julesssss removed the request for review from suneox February 21, 2025 17:24

Julesssss reviewed Feb 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/pages/OnboardingEmployees/BaseOnboardingEmployees.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved

Julesssss reviewed Feb 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

Julesssss mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2025

Send sign-ups that identify as having 11+ employees back to Classic. #53906

Open

Julesssss approved these changes Feb 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

Julesssss merged commit 2c07398 into Expensify:main Feb 21, 2025
21 of 25 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-02-21 #57263

Closed

29 tasks

mateuuszzzzz mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2025

Define noop implementation of 11+ redirect for desktop app #57328

Merged

48 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Redirect non-micro companies on web #55514

Redirect non-micro companies on web #55514

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 21, 2025 •

edited by Julesssss

Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

trjExpensify commented Jan 21, 2025

Julesssss commented Jan 22, 2025

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025

Julesssss commented Jan 23, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 23, 2025

Julesssss commented Jan 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 27, 2025

anmurali commented Feb 19, 2025

Julesssss commented Feb 19, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Feb 21, 2025

trjExpensify commented Feb 21, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Feb 21, 2025

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 21, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2025

Julesssss left a comment

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Julesssss left a comment

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

OSBotify commented Feb 21, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 24, 2025

Redirect non-micro companies on web #55514

Redirect non-micro companies on web #55514

Conversation

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 21, 2025 • edited by Julesssss Loading

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 21, 2025 • edited Loading

trjExpensify commented Jan 21, 2025

Julesssss commented Jan 22, 2025

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited Loading

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited Loading

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited Loading

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025

trjExpensify commented Jan 22, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025

Julesssss commented Jan 23, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 23, 2025

Julesssss commented Jan 23, 2025 • edited Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 27, 2025

anmurali commented Feb 19, 2025

Julesssss commented Feb 19, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Feb 21, 2025

trjExpensify commented Feb 21, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Feb 21, 2025

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 21, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2025

Julesssss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 • edited Loading

Julesssss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 • edited Loading

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

OSBotify commented Feb 21, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 21, 2025

github-actions bot commented Feb 24, 2025

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 21, 2025 •

edited by Julesssss

Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mateuuszzzzz commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Julesssss commented Jan 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Julesssss commented Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading