Fix: onboarding Track-business users land on Home instead of Inbox

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

After onboarding with "Track expenses for my business", users sometimes landed on the empty Inbox instead of Home. The onboarding navigation guards used isReportTopmostSplitNavigator() to decide whether to preserve the user's current view rather than sending them to Home. That helper only checks whether the Reports/Inbox tab is topmost — it does not check whether an actual report is revealed. So for a fresh onboarding user with no deep-linked report, if the empty Inbox tab happened to be the base tab, the guard fired, Navigation.navigate(ROUTES.HOME) was skipped, and the user was stranded on Inbox. It was intermittent because the outcome depended on which tab was the base of the tab navigator when onboarding started.

This swaps the guard to getCentralPaneReportID(), which already encodes exactly the intended condition — the Reports split is the active tab and a SCREENS.REPORT is actually revealed — returning undefined for the bare empty-Inbox sidebar. So !!getCentralPaneReportID() genuinely means "a report is revealed", and a fresh onboarding user with no report correctly navigates to Home. The change is applied to both onboarding call sites (the trackExpensesWithConcierge branch that caused the report, and the rhpHomePage branch that shares the same latent bug), plus the fallback gate in navigateAfterOnboarding. The name-level helper isReportTopmostSplitNavigator is left untouched for its many other callers (IOU flows, SignInModal, etc.).

Changed:

• src/components/SidePanel/RHPVariantTest/index.ts — shouldPreserveRevealedReport = !!getCentralPaneReportID() in both variant branches.
• src/libs/navigateAfterOnboarding.ts — fallback gate now } else if (!getCentralPaneReportID()) {.
• Updated the two unit test suites to mock getCentralPaneReportID and added regression cases asserting a fresh onboarding user (Inbox topmost, no report revealed) lands on Home.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/663126
PROPOSAL: https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/663126#issuecomment-5074382682

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the manual tests before marking this PR "ready for review".
// Suggested flow: sign in as a new user, start onboarding, select "Track expenses for my business", complete onboarding, and verify you land on Home (not Inbox). Repeat a few times since the original bug was intermittent. Also verify a user who deep-links into a report before onboarding still has that report preserved.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA steps before marking this PR "ready for review".

• 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

[MelvinBot]

No code fix needed — the only failing check is the PR Author Checklist, which is a manual step.

The checklist job fails with:

You completed 0 out of 38 checklist items with 38 unfinished items
PR Author Checklist is not completely filled out. Please check every box to verify you've thought about the item.

None of the 38 boxes in the PR Author Checklist section of the description are checked, so this is a human step, not something I can (or should) resolve by pushing code. marcochavezf, as author/assignee, needs to review and check the boxes in the PR body to clear it.

Every code-relevant check already passes: all 8 test jobs, typecheck, ESLint, Oxfmt, Bun tests, spellcheck, knip, Storybook, and React Compiler. The remaining build and *-perf-tests checks were still running when I looked — they're unrelated to this diff, which only swaps a navigation helper in navigateAfterOnboarding.ts and RHPVariantTest/index.ts and updates their unit tests.

Note

The job also logged Could not verify engineering membership for MelvinBot. Assuming they are not a member, since MelvinBot is the PR author. That doesn't change the outcome — the checklist still has to be filled out by a human before the check turns green.