Move Workspace creation in the onboardingFlow to OnboardingPurpose page and skip Workspace creation for OD signups

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

Explanation of Change

With the new BE changes, when a user signs up through OldDot and is redirected to NewDot, the backend now automatically creates a workspace for vsb and smb signup qualifiers.

In this PR, we skip the frontend workspace creation for these cases. We also move the workspace creation logic in the onboarding flow from the BaseOnboardingEmployees page to the BaseOnboardingPurpose page. Since BaseOnboardingPurpose is skipped for OD signups, this ensures no duplicate workspace is created.

Additionally, we added two conditions: hasSignupQualifier && filteredPolicies.length === 0 These prevent edge cases where a workspace might be created twice.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/53326 PROPOSAL: https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/53326#issuecomment-2508586081

Tests

Test 1

1. Sign up through OD.
2. Select Manage expenses for a small team (1-9 employees) during signup.
3. After being redirected to ND, complete the onboarding flow.
4. Verify that the CreateWorkspace API is not called during the onboarding flow (since the workspace is now automatically created in the backend).
5. After completing the onboarding flow, confirm that one workspace is successfully created with the new backend changes merged.

Test 2

1. Sign up through ND.
2. On the onboarding purpose step, select Manage my team's expenses.
3. Complete the onboarding flow.
4. Verify that the CreateWorkspace API is called during the onboarding flow
5. Verify that one workspace is created.

• [x] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Internet connection required.

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

• [x] Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

• [x] I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• [x] I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • [x] I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • [x] I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • [x] I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • [x] I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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).
• [x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• [x] I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • [x] Android: Native
  • [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
  • [x] iOS: Native
  • [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Desktop
• [x] 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)
• [x] I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
  • [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • [x] If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• [x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• [x] I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• [x] 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)
• [x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• [x] I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• [x] I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• [x] If any new file was added I verified that:
  • [x] 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
• [x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
  • [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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)
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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:
  • [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • [x] I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a31794e1-ce9d-4a72-a1bb-c4e14b0ec20c

Android: mWeb Chrome

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3627bf2e-5ed3-4529-8d8a-8b585d3f9f83

iOS: Native

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c0017ef0-0636-4137-98aa-3e002068a331

iOS: mWeb Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8df47cf3-f7b4-40da-9bbc-1e9a43aaed2c

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Signup through ND:

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/76971196-4fce-40ea-9d28-0b00407207a8

Signup through OD:

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/50da45c8-c38e-4266-9c89-5b52c23fd9f4

MacOS: Desktop

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/44f9eaec-cb6d-4423-81bb-ffc31e92f377

[melvin-bot[bot]]

@thesahindia 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]

[carlosmiceli]

@thesahindia this one is kinda urgent, in case you can prioritize it. Thank you! 🙏

[thesahindia]

Reviewing right now. I was having some issue on native. Even after fixing the issue it wasn't working. Had to restart the mac.

[thesahindia]

Reviewer Checklist

• [x] I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
• [x] I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• [x] I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
  • [x] I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
  • [x] I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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)
• [x] I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
• [x] I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• [x] I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
  • [x] Android: Native
  • [x] Android: mWeb Chrome
  • [x] iOS: Native
  • [x] iOS: mWeb Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • [x] MacOS: Desktop
• [x] 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
• [x] I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
  • [x] 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).
  • [x] I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  • [x] I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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.
  • [x] I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
• [x] If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• [x] I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• [x] 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)
• [x] I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
• [x] 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
• [x] If a new component is created I verified that:
  • [x] A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • [x] All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • [x] The file is named correctly
  • [x] The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
  • [x] The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] 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)
  • [x] All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • [x] 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
• [x] If any new file was added I verified that:
  • [x] 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
• [x] If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • [x] A similar style doesn't already exist
  • [x] The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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)
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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.
• [x] 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:
  • [x] I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • [x] I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• [x] 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.
• [x] For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
• [x] 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.
• [x] I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0a269ba1-7d7f-4a1f-b60e-8166bf3e6b0c

Android: mWeb Chrome

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7cb56859-46b3-40dd-93dd-91a5430500ef

iOS: Native

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4b3fec03-66c6-42e8-99ba-cb7b8dd60917

iOS: mWeb Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8c351c49-7a4c-4a12-803c-9ede596e400f

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1be295de-87f5-44e6-b505-f411f5c9933c

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9168d374-abfe-41e9-86cb-8cfac9d5c2e8

MacOS: Desktop

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/96c99fbf-6089-4917-b954-b00e43c91fbb

[marcaaron]

the backend now automatically creates a workspace for vsb and smb signup qualifiers

Just for clarity, it does not do this yet. This PR will need to support the existing flow AND that change when it happens?

We also move the workspace creation logic in the onboarding flow from the BaseOnboardingEmployees page to the BaseOnboardingPurpose page. Since BaseOnboardingPurpose is skipped for OD signups, this ensures no duplicate workspace is created.

I think we have to unwind this part. Something needs the policyID IIRC (see this PR). And, yes, the BE PRs will eventually allow us to remove this check, but the plan was to deploy them after this PR is deployed.

So, App needs to exist in a state where it will maybe create a policy for now and then stop creating one after the backend creates one. At least, I thought that was the plan.

@carlosmiceli Let me know if I have this right or if I'm missing something...

[carlosmiceli]

@marcaaron agreed on everything but this line:

App needs to exist in a state where it will maybe create a policy for now and then stop creating one after the backend creates one.

I don't think we stated that a policy would get temporarily created (if you do, maybe you can point me to that comment/thread?). Instead it would get created or not in ND depending on the signupQualifier (and it would assume that the BE has created the policy successfully). A policy should be created even before the account, so it's all happening before the user even signs in.

[marcaaron]

Please add manual QA steps for the accounting page flow.

[marcaaron]

I don't think we stated that a policy would get temporarily created (if you do, maybe you can point me to that comment/thread?)

Instead it would get created or not in ND depending on the signupQualifier

The App code will support the current state of things (no signupQualifier passed or policy created) and then also support the backend code when it gets merged and deployed. Not sure what you mean by "policy would get temporarily created", but I did not use those words 😄

[carlosmiceli]

Ah, cool, I interpreted that from this sentence:

create a policy for now and then stop creating one after the backend creates one

But seems like we're on the same page now!

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

Hi @carlosmiceli and @marcaaron, Based on the discussions so far from here https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/53326, we had assumed that the frontend changes in this PR would be merged simultaneously with the new backend changes. As a result, we completely skipped workspace creation for signups through OD in this PR.

However, from the discussions above, I understand that we may or may not create a workspace for OD signups in the frontend, depending on whether the backend has already created one. Therefore, we should still support workspace creation for OD signups on the frontend, and only skip it if the backend has already created a workspace for the user.

Did I understand this correctly? Thank you!

[carlosmiceli]

depending on whether the backend has already created one

This is not totally accurate. The onboarding flow shouldn't need to check for existing workspaces created, it just needs to create a workspace or not depending on the signupQualifier value. That's what should decide if we create or skip creating a workspace during onboarding. If the account was created, and the signupQualifier is either vsb or smb, the onboarding flow should assume a workspace was properly created.

Do we agree @marcaaron?

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

@marcaaron

Just for clarity, it does not do this yet. This PR will need to support the existing flow AND that change when it happens?

Yes, with this PR, we will still create a workspace for signups from ND that don’t have a signup qualifier, such as VSB or SMB. If there is a signup qualifier, this PR will skip workspace creation since the backend will handle it.

I think we have to unwind this part. Something needs the policyID IIRC (see this PR). And, yes, the BE PRs will eventually allow us to remove this check, but the plan was to deploy them after this PR is deployed.

So, App needs to exist in a state where it will maybe create a policy for now and then stop creating one after the backend creates one. At least, I thought that was the plan.

We are still handling the policyID for ND signups here using Welcome.setOnboardingPolicyID(policyID). For signups with VSB and SMB, I believe the backend should return the policyID via the ONYXKEYS.ONBOARDING_POLICY_ID onyx key when the workspace is created for those signups with a signup qualifier.

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

depending on whether the backend has already created one

This is not totally accurate. The onboarding flow shouldn't need to check for existing workspaces created, it just needs to create a workspace or not depending on the signupQualifier value. That's what should decide if we create or skip creating a workspace during onboarding. If the account was created, and the signupQualifier is either vsb or smb, the onboarding flow should assume a workspace was properly created.

Do we agree @marcaaron?

@luacmartins Great! In that case, we are doing exactly that in this PR.

[luacmartins]

@luacmartins Great! In that case, we are doing exactly that in this PR.

Was this meant for @carlosmiceli?

[marcaaron]

We are still handling the policyID for ND signups here using Welcome.setOnboardingPolicyID(policyID). For signups with VSB and SMB, I believe the backend should return the policyID via the ONYXKEYS.ONBOARDING_POLICY_ID onyx key when the workspace is created for those signups with a signup qualifier.

Yes I agree with everything here. @carlosmiceli can address the policyID thing as the backend code has not be merged yet.

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

@luacmartins Great! In that case, we are doing exactly that in this PR.

Was this meant for @carlosmiceli?

Apologies for the confusion, Yes, I meant to tag @carlosmiceli.

[carlosmiceli]

We realized that, since @Shahidullah-Muffakir makes a good point that we need to return the policyID, we should actually use that as a check to whether create a policy or not, instead of the signupQualifier. This simplifies the logic quite a bit. Can we implement that instead? I'll update the BE and let you know when it's merged. cc @thesahindia

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

@carlosmiceli Currently, we have both checks: if (!onboardingPolicyID && !hasSignupQualifier && filteredPolicies.length === 0) {

I’ll update the PR to remove the hasSignupQualifier check and rely only on the onboardingPolicyID check. That should be sufficient, Thank you.

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

We realized that, since @Shahidullah-Muffakir makes a good point that we need to return the policyID, we should actually use that as a check to whether create a policy or not, instead of the signupQualifier. This simplifies the logic quite a bit. Can we implement that instead? I'll update the BE and let you know when it's merged. cc @thesahindia

@carlosmiceli @thesahindia I removed the signupQualifier check for workspace creation, Thanks.

[carlosmiceli]

@Shahidullah-Muffakir great stuff, is this PR ready for review then?

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

@carlosmiceli Yes, the PR is ready for review. Thank you!

[carlosmiceli]

Great, @thesahindia all yours!

[carlosmiceli]

@Shahidullah-Muffakir can you help me confirm that we can get the signupBusinessPolicy ID from the policy list sent with onyxData in OpenApp? I'm thinking that there's no point in adding a logic to check for onboarding policy ID during openApp given that it should only be used to avoid creating a policy while the onboarding hasn't been completed yet and for new users that are not coming from OD.

Since the user can't create a workspace until the onboarding is complete, there's no risk of having any other policy other than the personal and the signupBusinessPolicy in the list at this time.

Does this make sense? Am I missing something?

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

@carlosmiceli If I understand correctly, you’re suggesting that we don’t need the onboardingPolicyID in openApp to avoid creating duplicate workspaces for OD signups. That’s correct because the current page (BaseOnboardingPurpose) is entirely skipped for OD signups, so a workspace won’t be created in that flow.

We still need onboardingPolicyID for other parts of the app, such as in the completeOnboarding function used in the tasks created during onboarding:

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/13286bec227f53a0b565e4fc1d54dc239dd3a78d/src/libs/actions/Report.ts#L3590-L3597

I couldn’t find the signupBusinessPolicy in the OpenApp response. If you’re suggesting that for OD signups, OpenApp will eventually return the signupBusinessPolicy and we then set it in the frontend as onboardingPolicyID using Welcome.setOnboardingPolicyID(signupBusinessPolicy);, that approach should also work.

[carlosmiceli]

I couldn’t find the signupBusinessPolicy in the OpenApp response.

It's not being sent that way inside OnyxData yet, but it's currently being returned under the policy_ onyx collection (along with the personal policy) with OpenApp:

One of them should be type: "personal" and one should be type: "team" (the latter being the new one that we are creating when we create the account and that should decide if we should create one during onboarding or not). My thinking was that we could use this as a way to set onboardingPolicyID, what do you think?

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

@carlosmiceli I believe we can use that approach.

However, currently, I can only see the policy of type personal being returned in the OpenApp endpoint, and not one of type team. If I can test this and confirm the team type policy is returned, I’ll make the necessary changes to update onboardingPolicyID using it and push the updates.

[carlosmiceli]

Right, we'll need to wait for the BE to be merged, it's not yet. But I wanted to confirm that this approach will work, this was the only thing holding back the BE in case we needed to send something different with OpenApp. I'll let you know as soon as it's deployed!

[carlosmiceli]

@Shahidullah-Muffakir ok, we realize that the FE should be merged first or otherwise we risk creating duplicate workspaces. However, the plan remains as we decided on the previous messages (getting the onboarding policy from the policy list). Can you proceed with the plan (hardcode values to test that it works) and once this is merged we can proceed with merging/testing the BE?

Let's make sure to test that this flow still creates a workspace for all the other existing cases, it should only skip creating one if the team policy is present in OnyxData after signing up in OD.

Thanks for the patience and hard work!

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

@carlosmiceli Sure, I’ll update and test the changes, Thanks.

[Shahidullah-Muffakir]

@carlosmiceli Added the changes to set onboardingPolicyID and onboardingAdminsChatReportID for OD signups based on the Policy returned from the BE.