Disable vacation delegate entry point while offline

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

When offline, tapping the Vacation delegate row on Account > Profile > Status (or on the Domain member details page) navigated the user into the vacation delegate selection screen, which only renders a full-page "You appear to be offline" block. That dead-end happens because the selection screen wraps its content in FullPageOfflineBlockingView, and the underlying SET action (setVacationDelegate) uses API.makeRequestWithSideEffects (not a queueable API.write) because it must read the server response to surface the policy-diff warning — so the action genuinely cannot complete offline.

Per the approved proposal (recommended option 1), this change disables the entry point while offline so users aren't routed into a screen they can't use. Both entry points (StatusPage and DomainMemberDetailsPage) render the shared VacationDelegateMenuItem component, so gating the MenuItem's disabled prop on useNetwork().isOffline there fixes both at once. The existing per-row pending/error indicator (OfflineWithFeedback) is unaffected.

Fixed Issues

$ #94183
PROPOSAL: #94183 (comment)

Tests

Same as Offline tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline
2. Go to Account > Profile > Status
3. Verify the Vacation delegate row is disabled (greyed out) and tapping it does nothing — you are no longer routed into the "You appear to be offline" screen
4. Go back online and verify the row becomes tappable again and opens the vacation delegate selection screen

QA Steps

Same as Offline 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 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 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.
• 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]

I created this PR from an upstream branch since you don't have a fork I could push to.

To take ownership of this branch and be able to push updates, run:

git remote add upstream https://github.com/Expensify/App.git
git fetch upstream claude-disableVacationDelegateOffline
git checkout -b claude-disableVacationDelegateOffline upstream/claude-disableVacationDelegateOffline
git push -u origin claude-disableVacationDelegateOffline

Then you can close this PR and open a new one from your fork.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/components/VacationDelegateMenuItem.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

[MelvinBot]

🤖 I looked into the failing checks — there's nothing for me to fix in the code.

The only failing check is PR Author Checklist / checklist, which fails because the checklist boxes in the PR description aren't ticked (You completed 0 out of 41 checklist items). That's a human-only checklist — the PR template says it must be filled out by the human co-author — so it can't and shouldn't be auto-completed.

Every real CI check is green: ESLint, Prettier, typecheck, all 8 test jobs, both build jobs, Bun tests, React Compiler Compliance, spellcheck, unused-styles, and validate. (baseline-perf-tests / branch-perf-tests were still running and are non-blocking informational checks unrelated to this change.)

Next step: Fill out the PR Author Checklist (and the Tests / QA Steps sections) in the description, and the checklist check will pass.

[dmkt9]

@MelvinBot update your checklist to the following:

1. Match with this template to fix the "PR Author Checklist" CI failure.
2. Check all the checkboxes
3. Update the "Tests" section and "QA steps" section to: Same as Offline tests

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Updated the PR description per your request:

1. Rebuilt the body to match the current PR template so the PR Author Checklist check passes.
2. Checked all checkboxes.
3. Set both the Tests and QA Steps sections to Same as Offline tests.

[dmkt9]

@MelvinBot mark this PR as ready

[melvin-bot]

@dmkt9 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]

[dmkt9]

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 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 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 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)
• 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
• 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.
• 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

Android: HybridApp

android.hybrid.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android.chrome.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

ios.hybrid.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.safari.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

mac.safari.mp4

[dmkt9]

LGTM

[trjExpensify]

This doesn't seem like a bug to me. We very rarely, if at all, disable rows when offline. We show a full page blocking form if it requires being online - and that's what the current behaviour appears to be applying pattern D.

@mountiny do you agree?

[dmkt9]

@trjExpensify I'm not entirely sure, but from what I understand, disabling that row while offline prevents users from opening it through the normal UI flow. The full-page offline blocker, on the other hand, prevents users from accidentally accessing the page via a deep link.

[mountiny]

I agree with Tom, also mainly because the full page makes it clear to the user WHY they cannot take the action. The disabled row does not explain that its because they are offline

[trjExpensify]

Cool, so I think we should close this PR then?

[mountiny]

Agreed