Scan- The old receipt still display on expense after replace new receipt

[mitarachim]

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

---

Version Number: v9.3.52-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: No
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: https://test-management.browserstack.com/projects/2219752/test-runs/TR-15787/folder/13176933/41237717/1302283485
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): lekima20+615303@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Bug source: Regression TC Execution
Device used: Win 11/Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

1. Open https://staging.new.expensify.com
2. Create a scan expense to any workspace chat
3. Click on this expense report to go detail page
4. Click on receipt
5. Click on Replace button
6. Upload new receipt and note that receipt not change
7. Click back button to return expense report
8. Click on this expense report again
9. Click on receipt
10. Click on X button to close receipt

Expected Result:

The new receipt should display in expense

Actual Result:

After replacing the receipt, the old receipt is still shown in the expense. When clicking on the old receipt, the new receipt is displayed but returning to the expense report, the old receipt still appears.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screenshots/Videos

Bug7120269_1775167833379.Recording__1937.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @dangrous (DeployBlockerCash), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/9980/ for more details.

[github-actions]

👋 Friendly reminder that deploy blockers are time-sensitive ⏱ issues! Check out the open `StagingDeployCash` deploy checklist to see the list of PRs included in this release, then work quickly to do one of the following:

1. Identify the pull request that introduced this issue and revert it.
2. Find someone who can quickly fix the issue.
3. Fix the issue yourself.

[melvin-bot]

💬 A slack conversation has been started in #expensify-open-source

[MelvinBot]

Proposal

What is the root cause of that problem?

PR #86512 introduced a localSource field on transaction.receipt to preserve the local image URI during SmartScan. In ReportActionItemImage.tsx:137-140, localSource takes priority over thumbnail and image when rendering the expense view.

When replaceReceipt runs (IOU/index.ts:~11686), it builds receiptOptimistic with only source, state, and filename, then merges it via Onyx.METHOD.MERGE. Since Onyx merge doesn't remove keys that aren't present in the update, the old localSource (pointing to the original receipt's blob URI) persists. ReportActionItemImage then uses this stale localSource instead of the new receipt's URL.

The full receipt modal uses a different code path (TransactionReceiptModalContent) that reads receipt.source directly, which is why the new receipt shows correctly there but not in the expense list view.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Add localSource: null to the receiptOptimistic object in the replaceReceipt function so that the stale local source is explicitly cleared on replacement. This ensures ReportActionItemImage falls through to using the correct thumbnail/image derived from the new receipt.source.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

An alternative would be to change ReportActionItemImage to not prefer localSource when the receipt state indicates a replacement is in progress. However, clearing localSource at the source (in replaceReceipt) is simpler, more targeted, and doesn't risk breaking the SmartScan display behavior that localSource was introduced to fix.

---

Next Steps for Contributor+ team: Reply with @MelvinBot implement this to create a draft PR, @MelvinBot <your feedback> to refine this analysis, or explain why you are rejecting Melvin's proposal.