Advanced approval - Approver is no longer after coming from "Expenses from" page

[lanitochka17]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.0.25-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: N
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail: N/A
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): [email protected]
Issue reported by: Applause - Internal Team

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace settings > Workflows
3. Click Add approval workflow
4. Select a user > Next
5. Select an approver > Next
6. Click back button twice
7. Click Next

Expected Result:

Approver will remain selected after coming from "Expenses from" page

Actual Result:

Approver is no longer after coming from "Expenses from" page

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

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

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6583935_1724743032154.20240827_151320.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @MonilBhavsar (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[lanitochka17]

We think that this bug might be related to #wave-control

[blazejkustra]

It is an intended behaviour to clear the approver when going back to 'expenses from' screen, linking an original discussion which describes why we decided to do that.

IMO no action is required and we can close the issue.

edit: alternative solution is to revert these lines, but there is other minor issue described and shown in this comment.

[MonilBhavsar]

Thank you for clarifying! Closing it