Handle blocked copilot and Expensify card flows gracefully

[ChavdaSachin]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #50796
PROPOSAL: NA

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

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

• 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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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
    • 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:
  • 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.js 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 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.
• 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

MacOS: Desktop

[melvin-bot]

Hey! I see that you made changes to our Form component. Make sure to update the docs in FORMS.md accordingly. Cheers!

[ChavdaSachin]

@Julesssss draft is up.
Working on DelegateNoAccessWrapper to accept PageNotFound props, and subscription page.

Quick question -
On security page in delegates section, both menu items are restricted actions, should we hide three dot menu there?

Same question for payment methods list on wallet page.

[ChavdaSachin]

One more important note here,

For privateProfileOptions fields (legal name,legal address......) following two options came to my mind.

1. Show noDelegateAccessModal as soon as delegate clicks on option from profile page.
2. Let delegate open RHP edit page for the option but show noDelegateAccessModal as soon as delegate tries to submit.

IMO option 2 aligns more with rest of the app.

Now again for option 2 there was an important decision about validation.

• I have decided to skip validation check for the actions where delegate would ultimately see noDelegateAccessModal when trying to submit.
• Or delegate might take time to clear all validations and at the end would not be able to make any changes, that is kind of frustrating for the user.

Thoughts?

[Julesssss]

We have design approval now, thanks for sharing the questions!

[ChavdaSachin]

One more task for design team,
When a delegate use deeplink to access the page which is restricted, what message should we display?
I suggest the message could be "As a delegate you don't have access to this page." with title "Hmm... it's not here"....

Sounds good?

[shawnborton]

I think something like that would work, but I could also see just using the same exact "Not found" page we use elsewhere in terms of the exact copy and text. cc @Expensify/design

[ChavdaSachin]

Currently we display either of "Oops, this page cannot be found" or "You don't have access to this chat" for not found page subtitle.

[shawnborton]

Got it, so maybe something like:

Title: You don't have access to this
Body: As a delegate, you can not access this page.

Or something like that. cc @jamesdeanexpensify for a quick looksie.

[ChavdaSachin]

One more input request,
Which of the following pages should contain back button for page not found view?

1. Desktop - Full screen page not found view.
2. Desktop - RHP page not found.
3. Mobile - page not found view.

[shawnborton]

Hmm I would think all of the, right? How do the current "not found" pages work?

[ChavdaSachin]

I checked, and yes back button is visible on all three case.
It is hidden for the only case where LHP is visible along with not found view on right side...
So this sounds resolved.

[dannymcclain]

Definitely agree with going with copy something like this (Shawn's suggestion):

You don't have access to this
As a delegate, you can not access this page.

I think there's a pretty decent difference between "We couldn't find that page" and "You don't have access to this".
The first message would make me think the product is broken or someone sent me a bum link, the second one is super clear about what's actually happening.

[jamesdeanexpensify]

For the copy, what about:

Not so fast...
As a copilot, you don't have access to this page. Sorry!

Question though - are we using this copy/modal for another type of "delegate" as well (like vacation delegate), or just for the copilot scenario? I'm just seeing both terms so I wanted to be sure what we should use in the modal.