Add Workspace Rooms Create Button Integration under workspaceRoomsPage beta

[jakubstec]

Explanation of Change

Adds a Workspace Rooms Create Room integration, allowing to create new rooms within a workspace. Available under the route workspaces/:policyID/rooms/new.

Fixed Issues

$ #85043
$ #89725

Tests

1. Log in on an account with the workspaceRoomsPage beta enabled.
2. Open any workspace and navigate to "Rooms"
3. Click "Create", type any name and press "Create Room"
4. Verify, that room is correctly created and you are navigated to room chat screen

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests.

QA Steps

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 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 used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it 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.ts 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 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.
• 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.
• 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

rooms1.mp4

[jakubstec]

has been reviewed by @sumo-slonik here, reopened a new PR because of diff base change :D

software-mansion-labs#337 (comment)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/CONST/index.ts	93.79% <ø> (ø)
src/ONYXKEYS.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/SCREENS.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...gation/linkingConfig/RELATIONS/WORKSPACE_TO_RHP.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/Navigation/linkingConfig/config.ts	76.92% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/actions/Report/index.ts	69.47% <ø> (+0.14%)	⬆️
src/ROUTES.ts	19.14% <0.00%> (+0.27%)	⬆️
...les/WorkspaceRoomsTable/WorkspaceRoomsTableRow.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...gation/AppNavigator/ModalStackNavigators/index.tsx	6.97% <0.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/Policy/Room.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 4 more
... and 73 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@shubham1206agra 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]

[github-actions]

❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

This new component heavily duplicates the existing src/pages/workspace/WorkspaceNewRoomPage.tsx. The validation logic (lines 55-72), submit handler (lines 74-93), visibility/write-capability options construction (lines 95-109), and form JSX structure are nearly identical between the two files.

Consider extracting the shared room-creation logic (validation, submit, options building, form fields) into a shared hook or shared component that both WorkspaceNewRoomPage and WorkspaceRoomCreatePage can reuse. For example, a useRoomCreationForm hook could encapsulate the validation, submit, and options logic, while the two pages would only differ in their screen wrappers, headers, and navigation behavior.

---

Reviewed at: ae406ad | Please rate this suggestion with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve! Reactions are used to monitor reviewer efficiency.

[jakubstec]

both serve different UX flow, so imo no need for logic extraction

[grgia]

@jakubstec rather than maintain these two files, could we update WorkspaceNewRoomPage to accept an optional policyID route param?

[grgia]

@jakubstec what's the update on this thread?

[jakubstec]

@grgia I've went with your suggestion 😄

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ae406ad2c9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Good for product

[jakubstec]

@shubham1206agra Hi, i've addressed the comment, should be ready now :)

[grgia]

@jakubstec rather than maintain these two files, could we update WorkspaceNewRoomPage to accept an optional policyID route param?

[grgia]

for this goback, how are we planning to handle the Highlight-on-return animation for the newly created room in the list?

[jakubstec]

@grgia I've implemented it in separate PR (draft): #91284 as it's blocked by Rooms List PR, and I didn't want to inflate LOC in a diff :) We can either merge them both (create button + room list), or merge room list first, then i'll just merge (create button + handle animation) to speed up the process

[sumo-slonik]

@shubham1206agra Do we have anything that needs fixing here, or is it already good as it is?

[shubham1206agra]

Screen.Recording.2026-06-02.at.5.32.22.PM.mov

@sumo-slonik The navigation after creating room does not happen

[sumo-slonik]

Screen.Recording.2026-06-02.at.5.32.22.PM.mov
@sumo-slonik The navigation after creating room does not happen

Not navigating into the newly created room is the expected behavior here — it's stated explicitly in the parent issue requirements (#85043, Predesign decisions → Interactions):

When the Create button is selected, it will open the Create chat screen/RHP on the Room tab. The UI will follow our existing create room flow for members and admins. Once created we drop you back in the table with a highlight animation for the newly created room

So after creating a room we should drop the user back in the Rooms table, not navigate into the room chat.

There is, however, a separate bug: the newly created room is not highlighted in the list on return. I'm already on it.

The test steps in the PR description that say "you are navigated to room chat screen" are outdated, but I can't edit them since I'm not the author of this PR

[grgia]

#91284

@sumo-slonik are you taking over the highlight in this PR?

[sumo-slonik]

@grgia It seems to me that it would be better to implement this highlight within this PR so that the adding feature is consistent and works correctly from the start. The highlight isn’t such a big change compared to the add itself. I’ve already added it to this PR.

@shubham1206agra It’s ready for review.

[shubham1206agra]

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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I verified proper code patterns were followed (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
  • 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 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)
• 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.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• If a new component is created I verified that:
  • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
  • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
  • The file is named correctly
  • 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
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
  • 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 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
• xIf 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.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-06-02.at.9.36.03.PM.mov

Screen.Recording.2026-06-02.at.9.49.47.PM.mov

[sumo-slonik]

@grgia I think we're ready to merge here

[grgia]

yep LGTM

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #90953.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-471fadad6f3-7814816-94f658d73a4d22dbcd5f22fef9d0a72e5054f5d4/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-471fada-7814816-118953cb890db7a64598e9eebe9b524b58576a59/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://90953.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.3.99-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

Help site review — no changes required

This PR adds an in-workspace Create button on the new Workspace → Rooms page, opening a room-creation screen locked to that workspace. After reviewing the diff against docs/articles, no help site updates are required at this time.

Why: The entire feature is gated behind the workspaceRoomsPage beta, so it is not generally available:

• The create screen is blocked unless the beta is enabled — WorkspaceRoomCreatePage.tsx (shouldBeBlocked={!isBetaEnabled(CONST.BETAS.WORKSPACE_ROOMS_PAGE)}).
• The Rooms page that hosts the button is gated the same way — WorkspaceRoomsPage.tsx:84.
• workspaceRoomsPage is defined as a beta in CONST/index.ts:991.

The existing, generally-available way to create a room — global + → Start Chat → #Room tab — is unchanged and remains accurately documented in Create a New Chat (docs/articles/new-expensify/chat/Create-a-New-Chat.md). The new Workspace → Rooms page itself is not yet documented anywhere, which is expected for a beta feature.

Recommendation: Hold help site documentation until this feature graduates from the workspaceRoomsPage beta to general availability. Since no docs changes are needed, I did not open a draft help site PR.

@jakubstec, please confirm this assessment. If you'd like the Workspace → Rooms page (including this Create flow) documented now despite the beta gating, reply with @MelvinBot and I'll draft the help site PR.

[jponikarchuk]

This PR failing because of the issue #92638
This issue is reproducible in: Web

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #92638 was identified to be related to this PR.

[jponikarchuk]

Deploy Blocker #92645 was identified to be related to this PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/lakchote in version: 9.3.99-9 🚀

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