fix: report field not disabled for per diem requests with no outstanding reports #77963

Burhan-Rashid · 2025-12-18T06:17:16Z

Explanation of Change

While creating per diem requests from global FAB, We should disable the report field on confirmation page if there are no outstanding reports in the workspace in which we are creating the per diem expense.

Fixed Issues

$#76205
PROPOSAL:#76205 (comment)

Tests

Precondition:

Create two workspaces - Workspace A and B.
Workspace A has per diem rates.
Workspace B does not have per diem rates (do not enable Per diem).

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace chat B.
Create two empty reports.
Open FAB > Create expense > Per diem.
Go through per diem expense creation flow and reach the confirm page.
On confirm page, verify report field should be disabled.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.native.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

andriod.web.mp4

iOS: Native

ios.native.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios.web.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

mac.web.mp4

…ng reports

codecov · 2025-12-18T06:25:47Z

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter.tsx	`84.21% <100.00%> (-0.06%)`	⬇️
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2025-12-18T06:37:45Z

@Pujan92 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]

github-actions · 2025-12-18T06:39:28Z

src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter.tsx

+            return (
+                !isArchivedReport(reportNameValuePair) &&
+                isReportOutstanding(report, report?.policyID, reportNameValuePairs, false) &&
+                (isPerDiemRequest ? report?.policyID === policy?.id && canSubmitPerDiemExpenseFromWorkspace(allPolicies?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY}${report?.policyID}`]) : true)


❌ PERF-2 (docs)

The expensive isReportOutstanding function is called before checking the simple property comparison report?.policyID === policy?.id when isPerDiemRequest is true. This forces the expensive function to run on all reports, even those that will be filtered out by the simple check.

Move the simple policyID check before the expensive operation:

return outstandingReports.filter((report) => { const reportNameValuePair = reportNameValuePairs?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_NAME_VALUE_PAIRS}${report?.reportID}`]; // Early return for perDiem requests with mismatched policyID if (isPerDiemRequest && report?.policyID \!== policy?.id) { return false; } return ( \!isArchivedReport(reportNameValuePair) && isReportOutstanding(report, report?.policyID, reportNameValuePairs, false) && (\!isPerDiemRequest || canSubmitPerDiemExpenseFromWorkspace(allPolicies?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY}${report?.policyID}`])) ); });

Pujan92 · 2025-12-18T16:51:22Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible 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 checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (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 the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- 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
- 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 verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
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.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
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 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.
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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Pujan92 · 2025-12-18T17:23:15Z

src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter.tsx


    // When creating an expense in an individual report, the report field becomes read-only
    // since the destination is already determined and there's no need to show a selectable list.
    const shouldReportBeEditable = (isFromGlobalCreate ? shouldReportBeEditableFromFAB : availableOutstandingReports.length > 1) && !isMoneyRequestReport(reportID, allReports);


Suggested change

const shouldReportBeEditable = (isFromGlobalCreate && !isPerDiemRequest ? shouldReportBeEditableFromFAB : availableOutstandingReports.length > 1) && !isMoneyRequestReport(reportID, allReports);

@Burhan-Rashid Alternatively, we can just make the above change to consider availableOutstandingReports for perDiemRequest which is derived with getOutstandingReportsForUser of the specific selected policyId. With this, we can take out the other changes you committed in this file. WDYT?

sure, we can do that. Let me test these changes once for different use cases and will update after that. Thanks

done pushed the changes. i tested the changes and it is working fine @Pujan92

Burhan-Rashid · 2025-12-18T17:57:53Z

src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReportCommon.tsx

    const {policyForMovingExpenses} = usePolicyForMovingExpenses(isPerDiemRequest);

-    const perDiemOriginalPolicy = getPolicyByCustomUnitID(firstTransaction, allPolicies);
+    const perDiemOriginalPolicy = getPolicyByCustomUnitID(firstTransaction ?? draftTransaction, allPolicies);


@Pujan92 Should i keep these changes in this PR or should we create a seperate issue and seperate PR for this one.

Let's revert this as it will be handled in #77923

trjExpensify · 2025-12-18T19:20:22Z

Can you try to make your PR titles more reflective of what code changes the PR is making / fill out the explanation of changes section? Thanks!

CC: @cristipaval @koko57 for vis as well.

Burhan-Rashid · 2025-12-18T19:31:10Z

Can you try to make your PR titles more reflective of what code changes the PR is making / fill out the explanation of changes section? Thanks!

sure, filled the explanation of change section.

trjExpensify · 2025-12-18T19:42:48Z

Thanks!

While creating per diem requests from global FAB, We should disable the report field on confirmation page if there are no outstanding reports in the workspace in which we are creating the per diem expense.

Why Outstanding and not Draft too? Also, if we're talking about outstanding reports... is that only prior to one level of approval being given on the outstanding report, as that's the point in which the submitter can't edit it anymore?

Burhan-Rashid · 2025-12-18T20:00:27Z

Why Outstanding and not Draft too? Also, if we're talking about outstanding reports... is that only prior to one level of approval being given on the outstanding report, as that's the point in which the submitter can't edit it anymore?

The issue here was the report field was not disabled for per diem expenses when there were no outstanding reports for that particular workspace in which user was creating the per diem expense, but when user clicked on the report field, there were no report options for him to select, that is why we need to disable the field when there are no report options available for the user. Because we only show the outstanding reports of that particular workspace in case of per diem expenses according to the code here:

App/src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReportCommon.tsx

Lines 169 to 178 in 5be3e2c

    
           .filter((report) => { 
        
               if (isPerDiemRequest && report?.policyID !== perDiemOriginalPolicy?.id) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               if (isPerDiemRequest && report?.policyID && selectedReportID !== report?.reportID) { 
        
                   const policy = allPolicies?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY}${report.policyID}`]; 
        
                   return canSubmitPerDiemExpenseFromWorkspace(policy); 
        
               } 
        
               return true; 
        
           })

trjExpensify · 2025-12-18T21:19:17Z

I'll wait for the engineers to chime in, I think the terminology "outstanding" is confusing me here, because it's the name of a specific report state.

Pujan92 · 2025-12-19T06:14:29Z

@trjExpensify isn't the "outstanding" term correct here which is either the report is in an open or submitted state but not yet approved?

parasharrajat · 2025-12-19T07:42:45Z

Test steps are wrong. How can we create a per diem expense in workspace B when per diem feature is disabled?

Burhan-Rashid · 2025-12-19T08:28:47Z

Test steps are wrong. How can we create a per diem expense in workspace B when per diem feature is disabled?

Steps are correct @parasharrajat. we only need to create 2 empty reports in workspace B(non per diem workspace) not per diem expenses.
Then create per diem expense using FAB which uses workspace A (per diem workspace) for creation.

Pujan92 · 2025-12-19T12:18:45Z

Thanks @parasharrajat for pointing that out. We can update the steps to

Precondition:

Workspace A has per diem rates.

Open FAB > Create expense > Per diem
Go through per diem expense creation flow and reach the confirm page
Verify the 2 scenarios on the confirmation page
a. The report field should be disabled(if there isn't any available report to change)
b. The report field should be enabled(if there is report available to change)

trjExpensify · 2025-12-19T12:21:01Z

@trjExpensify isn't the "outstanding" term correct here which is either the report is in an open or submitted state but not yet approved?

nah, outstanding is a specific report state, as is draft.

Burhan-Rashid · 2025-12-19T12:36:46Z

Precondition:

Workspace A has per diem rates.

Open FAB > Create expense > Per diem

Go through per diem expense creation flow and reach the confirm page

Verify the 2 scenarios on the confirmation page
a. The report field should be disabled(if there isn't any available report to change)
b. The report field should be enabled(if there is report available to change)

@Pujan92 if we follow these steps in current production version, we won't be able to reproduce this issue.
The important steps to reproduce this issue currently are having another workspace B (non per diem) and having empty reports/ outstanding reports in that workspace B.
May be We can add the 3a and 3b from your mentioned steps to the already present steps in the PR description.

Pujan92 · 2025-12-19T12:41:24Z

Oh yes, @Burhan-Rashid. we need available reports into any other workspace step

Pujan92 · 2025-12-19T12:46:55Z

@trjExpensify isn't the "outstanding" term correct here which is either the report is in an open or submitted state but not yet approved?

nah, outstanding is a specific report state, as is draft.

Ah, Yes @trjExpensify, we can think of the function name update. As in the code, based on the condition(shouldAllowSubmittedReport) either we consider "OPEN/SUBMITTED" report or "OPEN" report.

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 11445 to 11470 in 3210952

    
           function isReportOutstanding( 
        
               iouReport: OnyxInputOrEntry<Report>, 
        
               policyID: string | undefined, 
        
               reportNameValuePairs: OnyxCollection<ReportNameValuePairs> = allReportNameValuePair, 
        
               allowSubmitted = true, 
        
           ): boolean { 
        
               if (!iouReport || isEmptyObject(iouReport)) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               const currentRoute = navigationRef.getCurrentRoute(); 
        
               const params = currentRoute?.params as MoneyRequestNavigatorParamList[typeof SCREENS.MONEY_REQUEST.STEP_CONFIRMATION] | ReportsSplitNavigatorParamList[typeof SCREENS.REPORT]; 
        
               const activeReport = allReports?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${params?.reportID}`]; 
        
               const policy = allPolicies?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY}${policyID}`]; 
        
               const reportNameValuePair = reportNameValuePairs?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_NAME_VALUE_PAIRS}${iouReport.reportID}`]; 
        
               const shouldAllowSubmittedReport = allowSubmitted || isInstantSubmitEnabled(policy) || isProcessingReport(activeReport); 
        
               return ( 
        
                   isExpenseReport(iouReport) && 
        
                   iouReport?.stateNum !== undefined && 
        
                   iouReport?.statusNum !== undefined && 
        
                   iouReport?.policyID === policyID && 
        
                   (shouldAllowSubmittedReport ? iouReport?.stateNum <= CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED : iouReport?.stateNum < CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED) && 
        
                   (shouldAllowSubmittedReport ? iouReport?.statusNum <= CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED : iouReport?.statusNum < CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.SUBMITTED) && 
        
                   !hasForwardedAction(iouReport.reportID) && 
        
                   !isArchivedReport(reportNameValuePair) 
        
               ); 
        
           }

Pujan92 · 2025-12-20T05:50:49Z

@Burhan-Rashid Plz merge main

Pujan92

LGTM!

Screen.Recording.2025-12-20.at.11.09.44.mov

Burhan-Rashid · 2025-12-20T07:05:36Z

@Pujan92 There was eslint failure on the previous PR run. i have added comments for disabling the eslint for the deprecated function in this file. It was related to this function getReportName.
I don't think we can directly change that function to computeReportName because the function is not taking the selectedPolicy as argument. I think it should be fixed the author who added deprecated for this function getReportName.
Could you pls re-review, only comments have been added.

Pujan92 · 2025-12-21T12:11:57Z

src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter.tsx

+        // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-deprecated
        const name = getReportName(selectedReport, selectedPolicy);


Let's use the computeName like the below change instead of disabling it.

https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/76687/changes#diff-f03dbdeb70d463bca4be7ee37933485f3ff1e10e8c5c0e38bd20db4f1273e3f0R349-R354

Pujan92 · 2025-12-21T12:20:52Z

@justinpersaud Plz consider checking the comments here #77963 (comment). The "outstanding" term is used extensively(for derived onyx key too) in all those places from this PR.

justinpersaud · 2025-12-22T13:46:25Z

@trjExpensify the term outstanding is probably wrong here but the changes here aren't what introduced it. If we want to change it for house keeping, we should probably tackle that separately and not block on that here. Changes look fine to me.

Burhan-Rashid · 2025-12-29T13:14:16Z

Friendly bump for review @trjExpensify

justinpersaud · 2025-12-29T13:58:43Z

@trjExpensify let me know if you're fine with what I said above and I can merge if so

Burhan-Rashid · 2026-01-05T10:34:15Z

Friendly bump @trjExpensify #77963 (comment)

trjExpensify · 2026-01-05T16:03:29Z

I'm cool with that @justinpersaud. Sorry for the delay, I was OoO for the holidays.

OSBotify · 2026-01-05T17:08:49Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2026-01-06T14:09:40Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/justinpersaud in version: 9.2.94-0 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

fix: report field not disabled for per diem requests with no outstanding reports

OSBotify · 2026-01-07T13:40:32Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/arosiclair in version: 9.2.94-4 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

fix: report field not disabled for perdiem requests with no outstandi…

5378b93

…ng reports

melvin-bot bot assigned Burhan-Rashid Dec 18, 2025

Burhan-Rashid marked this pull request as ready for review December 18, 2025 06:37

Burhan-Rashid requested review from a team as code owners December 18, 2025 06:37

melvin-bot bot requested review from Pujan92 and removed request for a team December 18, 2025 06:37

melvin-bot bot requested review from trjExpensify and removed request for a team December 18, 2025 06:37

Burhan-Rashid mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2025

[Due for payment 2026-01-14] [$250] Per diem - Report field opens blank page when there are reports from other workspace #76205

Open

8 tasks

github-actions bot reviewed Dec 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

fixed PR comments

4cfa005

Pujan92 reviewed Dec 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Burhan-Rashid added 3 commits December 18, 2025 23:00

Merge branch 'main' into fix/76205

db982b7

fixed pr comments

d011085

removed unused import

5cf06b0

Burhan-Rashid commented Dec 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

removed unwanted changes

4b532da

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into fix/76205

0485147

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into fix/76205

e8c504c

Pujan92 approved these changes Dec 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from justinpersaud December 20, 2025 05:57

fixed eslint warnings

ab9da97

Pujan92 reviewed Dec 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

Burhan-Rashid added 3 commits December 22, 2025 12:53

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into fix/76205

2214477

removed no-deprecated comment

e73a7aa

use computeReportName instead of getReportName

466ad16

justinpersaud approved these changes Dec 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

trjExpensify approved these changes Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

justinpersaud merged commit 397f933 into Expensify:main Jan 5, 2026
32 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-01-06 #78900

Closed

53 tasks

abzokhattab pushed a commit to abzokhattab/App that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Merge pull request Expensify#77963 from Burhan-Rashid/fix/76205

a7cfacb

fix: report field not disabled for per diem requests with no outstanding reports

mitarachim mentioned this pull request Jan 7, 2026

Per diem- Error when creating per diem expense after selecting report from different workspace #78985

Open

7 tasks


	const shouldReportBeEditable = (isFromGlobalCreate && !isPerDiemRequest ? shouldReportBeEditableFromFAB : availableOutstandingReports.length > 1) && !isMoneyRequestReport(reportID, allReports);

		// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-deprecated
		const name = getReportName(selectedReport, selectedPolicy);

fix: report field not disabled for per diem requests with no outstanding reports #77963

fix: report field not disabled for per diem requests with no outstanding reports #77963

Uh oh!

Conversation

Burhan-Rashid commented Dec 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Dec 18, 2025 • edited by github-actions bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

❌ PERF-2 (docs)

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Dec 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Burhan-Rashid commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Burhan-Rashid commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Dec 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

parasharrajat commented Dec 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Burhan-Rashid commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Burhan-Rashid commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Dec 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Dec 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Pujan92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Burhan-Rashid commented Dec 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Burhan-Rashid commented Dec 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Dec 18, 2025 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

Pujan92 commented Dec 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

parasharrajat commented Dec 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented Dec 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading