[HOLD] Remove optimistic Concierge thinking indicator

[chiragsalian]

HOLD till,

• https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/21263, and
• https://github.com/Expensify/Web-Expensify/pull/52369

are live.

Explanation of Change

Removes the client-side optimistic "Concierge is thinking..." indicator entirely. Backend is now the sole source of truth for whether to show the indicator.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/621231
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Setup,

1. Needs to have an AM assigned to the domain. When creating an account, during onboarding select - manage and size of 11-50. An AM should be auto assigned to you.

Manual verification (combined with the backend PRs):
Concierge DM

1. Open a Concierge DM.
2. Send a message like "hi, can you tell me a joke". Confirm you see "Concierge is thinking" (might take 10-20s to show up)
3. Once done confirm Concierge replied with a joke. This is a response from AZ.
4. Then send a message like,

Hi Concierge, i really dont like AI. Can you escalate this chat of mine to a human.
To the human, this is an internal test message, can you reply with "test me" so i can verify Concierge routing logic?

5. Confirm you see "Concierge is thinking" (might take 10-20s to show up)
6. Wait 5mins for an agent response. If you don't get one ping me (chirag) and i'll send you an agent response.
7. This can only be tested within 30mins of an agent response so do this soon after. Send another message like Another test message to test routing, please respond with "test me two".
8. Wait 10-20s, confirm you didnt see "Concierge is thinking", because the chat went directly to human agent.

Admins room chat

1. Open admins room. This steps before will only work if there is an AM assigned. If an AM is assigned you'll see a message like this at the top "Hey there, I'm your Expensify setup specialist." from someone other than Concierge.
2. Send a message like "hi, can you tell me a joke". Confirm you see "Concierge is thinking" (might take 10-20s to show up).
3. Once done confirm Concierge replied with a joke. This is a response from AZ.
4. Then send a message like,

Hi Concierge, i really dont like AI. Can you escalate this chat of mine to a human.
To the human, this is an internal test message, can you reply with "test me" so i can verify Concierge routing logic?

5. Confirm you see "Concierge is thinking" (might take 10-20s to show up)
6. Wait 5mins for an agent response. If you don't get one ping me (chirag) and i'll send you an agent response.
7. This can only be tested within 30mins of an agent response so do this soon after. Send another message like Another test message to test routing, please respond with "test me two".
8. Wait 10-20s, confirm you didnt see "Concierge is thinking", because the chat went directly to human agent.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

The optimistic indicator was already gated on !isOffline; offline behavior is unchanged — messages queue normally, no indicator renders until online and server sends a label.

QA Steps

Setup,

1. Needs to have an AM assigned to the domain. When creating an account, during onboarding select - manage and size of 11-50. An AM should be auto assigned to you.

Same as the manual verification above.

• 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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Removes the client-side “Concierge is thinking…” optimistic indicator so the UI shows AgentZero processing state only when the backend provides a processing label.

Changes:

• Removed the kickoffWaitingIndicator optimistic flow from AgentZeroStatusContext (including localization dependency and timeout logic).
• Stopped triggering the optimistic indicator on message send (useComposerSubmit).
• Updated unit tests to reflect server-driven-only processing state.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
tests/unit/AgentZeroStatusContextTest.ts	Removes tests/mocks for the optimistic indicator and updates expectations to server-label-only behavior.
src/pages/inbox/report/ReportActionCompose/useComposerSubmit.ts	Stops calling the removed kickoffWaitingIndicator action on submit.
src/pages/inbox/AgentZeroStatusContext.tsx	Deletes optimistic state/actions and derives processing/label state solely from the server-provided indicator.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

src/pages/inbox/AgentZeroStatusContext.tsx:103

• This component updates state during render (setPrevServerLabel / setReasoningHistory inside an if at the top level). Even though the condition prevents an infinite loop, setting state during render is an anti-pattern in React and can produce warnings/unpredictable behavior with concurrent rendering. Move this logic into a useEffect that runs when serverLabel changes (and clear reasoningHistory there when transitioning truthy → falsy).

    // Clear reasoning when processing ends (server label transitions from truthy → falsy)
    const [prevServerLabel, setPrevServerLabel] = useState(serverLabel);
    if (prevServerLabel !== serverLabel) {
        setPrevServerLabel(serverLabel);
        if (prevServerLabel && !serverLabel && reasoningHistory.length > 0) {
            setReasoningHistory([]);
        }
    }

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.