[CP Staging] Revert report fields InitialListValueSelector dynamic route migration (#91627, #93153)

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Clean revert of two merged PRs (in reverse merge order), requested by mountiny to clear the DeployBlockerCash where the report-field initial value error persists after selecting an initial value:

1. Revert of Expensify/App#93153 [CP Staging] Fix report field Initial value: refresh redirect + status bar overlap #93153 — [CP Staging] Fix report field Initial value: refresh redirect + status bar overlap (follow-up fix). Reverted cleanly with no conflicts.
2. Revert of Expensify/App#91627 Migrate InitialListValueSelectorModal to dynamic @react-navigation route #91627 — Migrate InitialListValueSelectorModal to dynamic @react-navigation route. This restores the modal-based InitialListValueSelector and removes the DYNAMIC_REPORT_FIELDS_INITIAL_LIST_VALUE route/screen and its navigation wiring.

Each revert is its own commit so the original authorship/history is preserved.

Conflict resolution notes (#91627 revert)

#91627's 11 files were almost entirely auto-reverted. Two files needed manual resolution because main moved since the original merge:

• src/libs/Navigation/types.ts — main added an unrelated INVOICE_FIELDS_CREATE entry adjacent to #91627's DYNAMIC_REPORT_FIELDS_INITIAL_LIST_VALUE entry. Resolved by removing only the DYNAMIC_REPORT_FIELDS_INITIAL_LIST_VALUE entry and keeping INVOICE_FIELDS_CREATE.
• src/pages/workspace/reports/CreateReportFieldsPage.tsx — since #91627 merged, this file's inline form was extracted into the shared src/pages/workspace/fields/CreateFieldsPage.tsx component (a separate, later refactor). A mechanical revert would have restored the old inline form and undone that unrelated refactor, so I kept main's current refactored version of this file. #91627's only change here had been the removal of a single cosmetic subtitle={translate('workspace.reportFields.listValuesInputSubtitle')} prop on the initial-value InputWrapper. That form now lives in the shared CreateFieldsPage.tsx (also used by invoice fields), so I did not re-add the cosmetic subtitle there to avoid touching the shared component / invoice-field behavior. mountiny — flagging this one residual cosmetic difference for you to confirm; everything functional from #91627 is reverted.

Local AI checks (run by MelvinBot)

• npm run typecheck (tsc) — ✅ pass
• npm run lint-changed — ✅ pass
• npm run prettier --check (changed files) — ✅ pass
• react-compiler-compliance-check (changed .tsx) — ✅ all compiled

Fixed Issues

$ #93186
$ #93141
$ #93138
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"
// Please describe what tests you performed that validates your changed worked.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what QA needs to do to validate your changes and what areas do they need to test for regressions.

• 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.
• I verified that similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
• I verified that all props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
• I verified that each file is named correctly
• I verified that each component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
• I verified that the only data being stored in component state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
• In component if we are not using the full Onyx data that we loaded, I've added the proper selector in order to ensure the component only re-renders when the data it is using changes
• 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)
• I verified that component 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)
• I verified that all JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
• I verified that each 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

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/ROUTES.ts	20.49% <ø> (ø)
src/SCREENS.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...gation/AppNavigator/ModalStackNavigators/index.tsx	6.45% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
...gation/linkingConfig/RELATIONS/WORKSPACE_TO_RHP.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/Navigation/linkingConfig/config.ts	76.92% <ø> (ø)
...lueSelector/ReportFieldsInitialListValuePicker.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...rkspace/reports/InitialListValueSelector/index.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...istValueSelector/InitialListValueSelectorModal.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 22 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@ShridharGoel 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]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 53f52d8113

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".

[Julesssss]

No checklist, straight revert of two PRs

[github-actions]

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

[OSBotify]

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #93191.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-3f5de1deb3a-b76f1a7-f900dbddb2e0d762fca6a9e5dfff2594ed8f8110/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-3f5de1d-b76f1a7-c5a770ace859208e3d1577ea199f7bcc02a62a0d/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://93191.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.4.4-2 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

Help site review — no documentation changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help articles under App/docs/articles. No help site updates are needed.

Why: This PR is a purely internal navigation/routing revert. It restores the modal-based InitialListValueSelector and removes the DYNAMIC_REPORT_FIELDS_INITIAL_LIST_VALUE dynamic route/screen (reverting Expensify/App#91627 and Expensify/App#93153). The changes are limited to:

• Route/screen registration (src/ROUTES.ts, src/SCREENS.ts)
• Navigation wiring (ModalStackNavigators, linkingConfig, types.ts)
• Swapping a dynamic-route page for an equivalent modal component (InitialListValueSelectorModal.tsx)

The end-user experience of setting an Initial value for a list-type report field is functionally unchanged — same picker, same labels, same subtitle copy. No feature was added or removed, no UI labels/tabs/settings were renamed, and no product copy changed. Help articles document user-facing product behavior, none of which is affected here.

@mountiny — flagging for your awareness; no linked help site PR was created because no documentation changes are required. Let me know if you'd like me to document anything specific about the report-field initial value flow regardless.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.4.4-3 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.4.5-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 9.4.5-6 🚀

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