[No QA] Remove unsafe type assertions from getStateForDynamicRouteTests.ts tests

[KJ21-ENG]

Explanation of Change

Removed @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion violations from tests/navigation/getStateForDynamicRouteTests.ts as part of the cleanup for Expensify/App issue #94739.

What changed:

• Replaced fabricated test-only dynamic route keys with valid production-typed keys in the Jest mock.
• Replaced unsafe type assertions used to inspect returned navigation state with structural narrowing.
• Preserved the existing route, parameter, and error-path scenarios and assertions.

Why this approach is safe:

• Only test typing and mock-key names changed; existing scenarios and assertions remain unchanged.

Reviewer focus:

1. Confirm the mocked keys satisfy keyof typeof DYNAMIC_ROUTES without assertions.
2. Confirm structural narrowing preserves nested state and parameter assertions.

Safety checks:

• Bounded verification, signed commit, and independent reviews match the exact publication head.

Fixed Issues

$ #94739
PROPOSAL: #94739 (comment)

Count change

Current baseline source:

• config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv

Before:

• tests/navigation/getStateForDynamicRouteTests.ts: 27 violations

After:

• tests/navigation/getStateForDynamicRouteTests.ts: 0 violations

Net reduction:

• 27 fewer @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion violations.

TSV evidence:

• The generated TSV was not included in this PR; the baseline remains maintained outside the change and post-merge automation tightens it on main.

Tests

1. Run:

   npx oxfmt --check tests/navigation/getStateForDynamicRouteTests.ts
   

   Verify the target file is formatted.

2. Run:

   npx eslint tests/navigation/getStateForDynamicRouteTests.ts
   

   Verify focused lint passes with no target-rule warnings for the edited file.

3. Run:

   npx jest tests/navigation/getStateForDynamicRouteTests.ts --runInBand
   

   Verify the focused test suite passes all 11 existing scenarios.

4. Run:

   git diff --check
   

   Verify diff hygiene.

5. Verification result: The focused Jest suite passed all 11 existing scenarios, with focused ESLint, formatting, bounded target TypeScript validation.

Offline tests

Not applicable: this test-only type-safety cleanup adds no network behavior.

QA Steps

Not applicable: production behavior and UI are unchanged.

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

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

Android: mWeb Chrome

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

iOS: Native

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

iOS: mWeb Safari

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

[melvin-bot]

@youssef-lr 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]