Adding a phone login sends a /v/<accountID>/<validateCode> link but this route was removed

[marcaaron]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Action Performed:

1. Add phone login
2. Get text message
3. See link has /v/<accountID>/<validateCode> syntax
4. Tap it and brought to app but nothing happens (route doesn't exist)

Expected Result:

1. Validate code is passed to validateLogin() and the secondary login gets added ? cc @NikkiWines

Actual Result:

Nothing happens

Workaround:

They can't add a phone login

Platform:

Where is this issue occurring?

• Web
• iOS
• Android
• Desktop App
• Mobile Web

Version Number:
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Notes/Photos/Videos: Any additional supporting documentation
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by:
Slack conversation:

View all open jobs on GitHub

[iwiznia]

hmmm is the problem that the app should not be opening that link at all? Or what is the expected behavior when the app opens it?

[marcaaron]

hmmm is the problem that the app should not be opening that link at all

We send you a link and it opens the app, but does not validate your secondary login. Because the link we send has no corresponding route so it is like a very basic deep link that does nothing but open the app. The expected behavior is that your secondary login will get automatically validated.

[roryabraham]

I'll add the validate route back, then we should make sure this flow is added to the regression testing suite.

[iwiznia]

Oh I see, so it would receive the values, call the validate api and then redirect to some other page?
Alternatively, we could do that in oldDot, that already should have a page for that, no?

[marcaaron]

Alternatively, we could do that in oldDot, that already should have a page for that, no?

AFAIK the design that was implemented was to have the user return to NewDot - so unsure if we should change that. But maybe @NikkiWines has thoughts on this.

[NikkiWines]

The original implementation had the user routed back to NewDot if they initiated adding the secondary login from NewDot - I don't think we should change it so they're routed to OldDot. Seems like a weird flow for them to go through