Prevent unique constraint violation when duplicating split expenses removed from reports #81389

c3024 · 2026-02-04T10:14:56Z

Explanation of Change

When a split expense is "removed from report", the transaction's linkedTrackedExpenseReportAction field contains a report action with childReportID pointing to the existing transaction thread report.

When duplicating such a transaction:

linkedTrackedExpenseReportAction was being spread from the original transaction into transactionParams
In getMoneyRequestInformation, this caused existingTransactionThreadReportID to be set to linkedTrackedExpenseReportAction?.childReportID
The backend then tried to create a transaction thread report with that ID, which already existed, causing the unique constraint violation

We fix this by explicitly excluding linkedTrackedExpenseReportAction to ensure a fresh transaction thread report is created for the duplicate.

Fixed Issues

$ #78450
PROPOSAL: NA

Tests

Go to workspace chat.
Create an expense.
Open the expense report.
Click More > Split > Save.
Open any split.
Click Report field > Remove from report.
Go to self DM.
Open the unreported split expense.
Click More > Duplicate.
Verify that duplicate is created successfully in the default workspace chat and the no errors are thrown.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

NA

QA Steps

Same as tests.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

duplicateSplitMovedToSelfDM.mov

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

…ported transaction is duplicated

melvin-bot · 2026-02-04T10:45:57Z

@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]

NikkiWines

👍

trjExpensify

Open the unreported split expense.
Click More > Duplicate.
Verify that duplicate is created successfully in the workspace chat and the no errors are thrown.

I thought it was a bit strange that duplicating an unreported expense auto-reports the duplicates expense, but I see what's what we do on Classic. 👍

Pujan92 · 2026-02-05T18:43:11Z

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

Screen.Recording.2026-02-06.at.16.58.17.mov

Pujan92 · 2026-02-06T07:05:03Z

Verify that duplicate is created successfully in the workspace chat and the no errors are thrown.

@c3024 shouldn't the duplicating expense be created in the selfDM in this case?

c3024 · 2026-02-06T07:25:12Z

@Pujan92

I don’t think so. For example, if we track an expense in SelfDM (without going through the split flow, as in this case) and then duplicate it, it gets added to the workspace chat. I added that specificity to the steps so QA and anyone testing knows where to find the duplicated expense.

We’re fixing only the specific split → SelfDM → duplicate case here to match the behavior of duplicating a directly tracked expense in SelfDM, so the duplicated expense being added to the workspace chat should be the correct behavior.

Pujan92 · 2026-02-06T11:31:20Z

@c3024 It(duplicate) is added to the default workspace chat even though it is splitted form other workspace chat. Is it expected?

c3024 · 2026-02-06T11:54:12Z

@c3024 It(duplicate) is added to the default workspace chat even though it is splitted form other workspace chat. Is it expected?

I think this is the expected behavior. Once an expense is unreported (removed from the report and moved to Self DM), it becomes an independent expense, and duplicating it should go to the default workspace chat.

Could you please confirm? @trjExpensify @NikkiWines

Pujan92 · 2026-02-06T12:19:16Z

Bug: Duplicating in the non-default workspace expense also moved to the default workspace chat. But I see it is the same on the prod too so not related to our PR.

Screen.Recording.2026-02-06.at.17.48.14.mov

Pujan92 · 2026-02-06T12:20:30Z

Verify that duplicate is created successfully in the workspace chat and the no errors are thrown.

We can update the test step here to clarify where to check

Verify that a duplicate is created successfully in the default workspace chat and no errors are thrown

Pujan92

LGTM, Auth CreateMoneyRequest error is fixed!

melvin-bot · 2026-02-06T12:26:04Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #78450 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

NikkiWines · 2026-02-06T17:56:23Z

I think this is the expected behavior. Once an expense is unreported (removed from the report and moved to Self DM), it becomes an independent expense, and duplicating it should go to the default workspace chat.

I think that's correct but will rely on @trjExpensify's product expertise here

trjExpensify · 2026-02-10T02:31:32Z

Yeah, duplicating an unreported expense auto-reports the duplicates expense to the default workspace on Classic. So I think that's correct of parity sake, though I do think it's a bit blunt, but not worth the hassle to change it here and now. 👍

youssef-lr · 2026-02-10T17:27:19Z

tests/actions/IOUTest/DuplicateTest.ts

            expect(duplicatedTransaction?.comment?.customUnit?.quantity).toEqual(DISTANCE_MI);
        });
+
+        it('should not carry over linkedTrackedExpenseReportAction from the original transaction', async () => {


@c3024 this test does not fail if I revert the changes from Duplicate.ts. Can you take a look please?

youssef-lr

Left a comment

drop reportIDs from transaction to avoid collisions when a split unre…

a7a2b8c

…ported transaction is duplicated

melvin-bot bot assigned c3024 Feb 4, 2026

exclude linkedTrackedExpenseReportAction

725549e

c3024 marked this pull request as ready for review February 4, 2026 10:45

c3024 requested review from a team as code owners February 4, 2026 10:45

melvin-bot bot requested review from Pujan92 and trjExpensify and removed request for a team February 4, 2026 10:45

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team February 4, 2026 10:45

c3024 requested a review from NikkiWines February 4, 2026 10:47

NikkiWines approved these changes Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

trjExpensify approved these changes Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Pujan92 approved these changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from youssef-lr February 6, 2026 12:26

youssef-lr approved these changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

youssef-lr reviewed Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

youssef-lr requested changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Prevent unique constraint violation when duplicating split expenses removed from reports #81389

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Prevent unique constraint violation when duplicating split expenses removed from reports #81389

Conversation

c3024 commented Feb 4, 2026 • 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!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 4, 2026

Uh oh!

NikkiWines left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Feb 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

c3024 commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

c3024 commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Feb 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Pujan92 commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Pujan92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

NikkiWines commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify commented Feb 10, 2026

Uh oh!

youssef-lr Feb 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

youssef-lr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

c3024 commented Feb 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented Feb 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Pujan92 commented Feb 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading