Update Optimistically copy submission/approval related report actions to the new report after partial approval

[hungvu193]

Explanation of Change

Update Optimistically copy submission/approval related report actions to the new report after partial approval

Fixed Issues

$ #74575
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Same as QA Steps

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as QA Steps

QA Steps

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

1. Have a workspace with a Control workspace
2. Go to the workspace settings → Workflows → and enable Add Approvals
3. Configure multi-level approvers so that expenses from everyone have approver1 as the First approver, approver2 as the Second approver, and approver3 as the Third approver
4. Have a user named submitter manually submit a report with 6 expenses (let's call it report1)
5. As the user approver1, go to the submitter's workspace chat and open the report
6. Hold 2 expenses from the report
7. Click on the Approve button for report1
8. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses from the report
9. Verify that you see the report action showing that report1 was approved by approver1
10. Verify that report1 now has only the 4 expenses that are not held and is awaiting approval from approver2
11. Go back to the submitter's workspace chat
12. Verify that a new report (report2) was created and the 2 held expenses were moved to it
13. Verify that report2 with the held expenses is submitted and awaiting approval from approver1
14. Verify that the SUBMITTED report action from report1 is copied to report2 (it has the same actor, submitter, and the same timestamp)
15. Verify that a new report action is added to report2 stating that it was created for the held expenses from report1
16. As approver2, go to the submitter's workspace chat and click on report1
17. Hold an expense and then click on the Approve button for report1
18. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses
19. Verify that you see a report action for the approver2 approval and report1 now only has the 3 unheld expenses, awaiting approval from approver3
20. Go to the submitter's workspace chat and verify that a new report (report3) has been created and the held expense was moved to it
21. Verify that report3 has copies of the SUBMITTED and APPROVE report actions from report1, with the same actors and timestamps
22. Verify that a new report action is added to report3 stating that it was created for the held expenses from report1
23. Verify that report3 is awaiting approval from approver2
24. As approver3, go to the submitter's workspace chat and click on report1
25. Hold an expense and then click on the Approve button for report1
26. Choose to only approve the unheld expenses
27. Verify that you see a report action for the approver3 approval and report1 now only has the 2 unheld expenses and is finally approved
28. Go to the submitter's workspace chat and verify that a new report (report4) has been created and the held expense was moved to it
29. Verify that report4 has copies of the SUBMITTED and APPROVE report actions from report1, with the same actors and timestamps
30. Verify that a new report action is added to report4 stating that it was created for the held expenses from report1
31. Verify that report4 is awaiting approval from approver3

• 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 verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• I followed proper code patterns (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 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
    • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
  • 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 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)
• 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.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
• I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
• 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 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.
• 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.
• 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

Screen.Recording.2026-01-15.at.09.54.54.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-01-15.at.09.57.39.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-01-15.at.09.43.23.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-01-15.at.09.32.51.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-01-14.at.18.10.03.mov

[hungvu193]

working on fixing duplicate system messages

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	68.31% <60.00%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
... and 56 files with indirect coverage changes

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9a19fb128b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[hungvu193]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3abfc45c38

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[parasharrajat]

Do we need to delete any of these actions when we delete the report? Recently QA posted such bug and you replied on it today. @cristipaval

[cristipaval]

Do we need to delete any of these actions when we delete the report? Recently QA posted such bug and you replied on it today. @cristipaval

COuld you please give me the exact steps of the scenario that you are talking about?

[parasharrajat]

@cristipaval Found the issue #79411

[cristipaval]

ah I get it now, @parasharrajat. No, let's not remove report actions when the original report is deleted. The ultimate scope of the report action copies is to show the approval chain that the expenses went through.

[hungvu193]

I guess we can move forward then?

[parasharrajat]

Yes, wrapping up the checklist shortly.

[parasharrajat]

Screenshots

🔲 iOS / native

16.01.2026_19.26.02_REC.mp4

🔲 iOS / Safari

16.01.2026_19.30.43_REC.mp4

🔲 MacOS / Chrome

16.01.2026_18.46.58_REC.mp4

🔲 Android / Chrome

🔲 Android / native

17.01.2026_13.43.33_REC.mp4

[parasharrajat]

I am testing some approval related functionality around partial approval.

[parasharrajat]

I noticed that when the held expenses are moved to another report just fine, but the approver is wrong in the next steps in following case. But I login with mentioned approver I see the correct approver name in the message.

Steps:
1 Setup workspace approver list as this.

1. Approver 1 
2. Approver 2. 
3. Approver 3 (Submitter). 

2. Then start the test steps until you reach Approver 3 who is the submitter. At this stage the next step says that approver 1 has to approve but it should be submitter as 3rd approver.

17.01.2026_14.01.19_REC.mp4

[parasharrajat]

But this issue happens on staging as well so I am approving it. The Approve functionality is actually working correctly.

[parasharrajat]

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: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
  • 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 form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label 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.

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[parasharrajat]

cc: @cristipaval Please check this #79524 (comment)

[OSBotify]

✋ 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]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.3.5-0 🚀

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 9.3.5-7 🚀

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