Expense - Rate field is disabled when account has only non-default workspaces

[applause-bot]

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: 9.3.84-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: N/A - new feature, doesn't exist in prod
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: #84382
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): soidjnosnjdoijsioj@gmail.com
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Bug source: Exploratory - Significant User Experience Deterioration
Device used: Mac 26.5 / Chrome
App Component: Money Requests

Action Performed:

Precondition:

• Create two workspaces.
• Make personal policy as default policy on OD.

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to self DM.
3. Create a distance expense.
4. Open the expense.
5. Click Rate field.
   → Workspace selector opens.
6. Close the RHP.
7. Click More > Split.
8. Click on any split.
9. Click Rate field.

Expected Result:

Rate field on split details page will open workspace selector.

Actual Result:

Rate field on split details page is disabled when account has only non-default workspaces.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

Bug7164516_1779905212468.4.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Applause Internal Information
Exported by: Julia Ponikarchuk
Bug ID: 7164516

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @ZhenjaHorbach

[applause-bot]

While Applause doesn't embed attachments for this bug, here are the links for quick view:
https://platform.applause.com/services/links/v1/external/8bf658d89601514a227ff7c47599dbcef9733f9e1cd9cf85c0409fd7f52d062e

[melvin-bot]

You have been assigned to this deploy blocker because you recently merged this PR: #84382

[melvin-bot]

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

[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.

[MelvinBot]

Proposal

What is the root cause of that problem?

After splitting a distance track expense in self-DM, the split child transactions lose their "track expense" status — the parent report action type becomes CREATE instead of TRACK. The Rate field's interactivity is gated by canEditDistanceOrRate:

isPolicyAccessible(policy) || isTrackExpense || isP2PDistanceRequest

For split children in self-DM: isTrackExpense is false (action type is CREATE, not TRACK), isP2PDistanceRequest is false, and policy resolves to undefined because usePolicyForMovingExpenses returns undefined when the user has multiple workspaces and the active policy is a personal policy (filtered out by activePolicySelector). All three conditions fail → canEditDistanceOrRate = false → Rate field is disabled.

Additionally, even if the field were interactive, the workspace selector fallback at line 783-796 only triggers for track expenses (if (isTrackExpense)), so split children would not navigate to the workspace selector.

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

In MoneyRequestView.tsx, extend the canEditDistanceOrRate condition to also allow editing when the expense is unreported (which split children in self-DM are):

const canEditDistanceOrRate = isPolicyAccessible(policy, currentUserEmailParam) || isTrackExpense || isP2PDistanceRequest || isExpenseUnreported;

Then extend the workspace selector fallback in the Rate field's onPress handler (currently gated by if (isTrackExpense) at line 770) to also apply when the expense is unreported, so the user gets navigated to the workspace selector when no policy is resolved.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

An alternative would be to mark split children of track expenses as track expenses themselves, but that would have broader implications across the codebase since isTrackExpense is used in many places with specific semantics.

---

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.