Skip to content

Allow re-verifying an already-validated domain for non-admin domain members instead of showing a NotFoundPage page - #96721

Merged
mountiny merged 6 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
rayane-d:verify-verified-domain
Jul 22, 2026
Merged

Allow re-verifying an already-validated domain for non-admin domain members instead of showing a NotFoundPage page#96721
mountiny merged 6 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
rayane-d:verify-verified-domain

Conversation

@rayane-d

@rayane-d rayane-d commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

On an already-verified domain, clicking Verify (by a non-admin domain member) took the user to the not found page instead of the verify screen. This was because the code treated a verified domain as a dead end. With this PR, The DNS verify screen opens and works for verified domains too, just like in Classic. the BE commands to get the code and verify the domain already work for non-admins.

  • Removed the check that sent verified domains to the error page.
  • Removed the validated check that stopped the app from fetching the verify code (without this, the code field showed empty).
  • Removed the same validated check from the effect that clears old verify errors.

Fixed Issues

$ #96688
PROPOSAL:

Tests

  1. Log in to New Expensify as a user who is not an admin of an already-verified domain.
  2. Open the already-verified domain and confirm you land on the Access restricted page (.../workspaces/domain-access-restricted/<domainAccountID>).
  3. Click the Verify button at the bottom.
  4. Verify the DNS verification screen renders instead of an error/NotFoundPage.
  5. Verify the TXT record value (validation code) is populated in the copyable field and is not empty.
Screenshot 2026-07-22 at 9 22 21 AM
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

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

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

@jakubstec

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

looks good, only thing I wonder about, is it desired for an domain admin to see this screen? Those checks prevented the deep-link access to verify screen

Screen.Recording.2026-07-22.at.10.46.29.mov

@rayane-d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

looks good, only thing I wonder about, is it desired for an domain admin to see this screen? Those checks prevented the deep-link access to verify screen

Good catch - you were right. The initial solution removed the domain.validated checks entirely, which allowed domain admins in verified domains to access the verification screen as well. I've replaced the domain.validated check with isVerifiedDomainAdmin, so admins of verified domains are still blocked when they deep-link, while only non-admin users proceed to the verification flow.

@rayane-d
rayane-d requested a review from jakubstec July 22, 2026 11:36
@rayane-d
rayane-d marked this pull request as ready for review July 22, 2026 11:36
@rayane-d
rayane-d requested review from a team as code owners July 22, 2026 11:36
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from ZhenjaHorbach and mountiny July 22, 2026 11:36
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ZhenjaHorbach @mountiny One of you needs to 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]

@ZhenjaHorbach

ZhenjaHorbach commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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 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 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)
  • If a new component is created I verified that:
    • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
    • All props are defined accurately
    • 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
    • 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 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.
  • 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
2026-07-22.16.42.48.mov
Android: mWeb Chrome
2026-07-22.16.42.48.mov
iOS: HybridApp
2026-07-22.16.42.48.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
2026-07-22.16.42.48.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
2026-07-22.16.41.20.mov

@ZhenjaHorbach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Changes look good!

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@mountiny
mountiny merged commit a09ead8 into Expensify:main Jul 22, 2026
33 checks passed
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚧 mountiny has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.43-0 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🤖 I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site files under docs/articles.

No help site changes are required.

This PR is a bug fix in src/pages/domain/BaseVerifyDomainPage.tsx: it lets a non-admin domain member open the DNS verification screen for an already-verified domain (previously they hit a NotFoundPage), while domain admins still see the not-found state since they have nothing left to verify. This restores parity with Classic behavior.

The most relevant article, Claim-and-Verify-a-Domain.md, documents the general claim-and-verify DNS flow (Workspaces → Domains → Verify domain → add TXT record). This PR:

  • Does not change that documented flow or any of its steps.
  • Does not add, rename, or move any feature, tab, setting, or button.
  • Only affects an internal routing edge case (which member roles land on the verify screen vs. the not-found page) that the help site doesn't describe.

Because no documented, user-facing behavior changes, there's nothing to update on the help site, so I haven't opened a docs PR.

@rayane-d, please confirm you agree no help site changes are needed here. If you'd like a docs update anyway (e.g. to clarify the non-admin verification flow), let me know and I'll open a draft PR.

@jponikarchuk

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploy Blocker #96847 was identified to be related to this PR.

@jakubstec

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

fixed here #96858

@OSBotify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 9.4.43-1 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

@rayane-d
rayane-d deleted the verify-verified-domain branch July 23, 2026 23:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants