feat: derive report-load skeleton gates from the request queue

[BartekObudzinski]

Explanation of Change

The initial report-load skeleton on a few report surfaces reads the stored isLoadingInitialReportActions flag. Like other stored loading flags, it is a shadow of the request queue and can be stranded by a reload or dropped response, leaving the skeleton up with no request running.

This change moves the clean, screen-level consumers onto the queue-derived, per-report useIsReportLoadPending(reportID) hook, which reads whether an OpenReport request for that report is currently in the SequentialQueue. The flag is set and cleared atomically with that request, so healthy-path behavior is identical.

The hook now also accepts reportID: string | undefined (an undefined scope key never matches a real OpenReport, so it reads as "not loading") to avoid defaulting the id to a sentinel value where a caller's reportID is optional.

Scope is deliberately narrow: only consumers that read the flag as a plain, screen-level skeleton gate for a single report. Consumers with completion semantics (=== false), default-true guards, per-row render paths, transition trackers, or pure utilities that take the state as a parameter are intentionally left on the flag. The flag and its writers are untouched — removal is a separate change.

Migrated: MoneyReportHeaderNextStep, MoneyRequestReportView, ReportFooter.

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open a report that is not cached. Verify the loading skeleton shows, then the report renders.
2. Open several reports in a row. Verify each shows its own skeleton then content (no stale content).
3. Reload the app while a report is loading, then reopen it. Verify the skeleton resolves (no stuck skeleton).

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline, then open a report. Verify offline behavior matches today (no endless skeleton for cached reports).

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 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 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../MoneyRequestReportView/MoneyRequestReportView.tsx	54.94% <100.00%> (ø)
src/hooks/useInFlightRequests.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/pages/inbox/report/ReportFooter.tsx	48.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/components/MoneyReportHeaderNextStep.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 30 files with indirect coverage changes