Add diagnostic logging to approval workflow resolution

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Adds diagnostic logging to the approval workflow resolution path to validate the root cause analysis from https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/591864, where expense reports were skipping the first approver in the chain (Kayce) and going directly to the final approver (Jasmin).

The hypothesis is that getSubmitToAccountID() / getManagerAccountID() in PolicyUtils sometimes falls back to policy.owner (the final approver) instead of reading employee.submitsTo (the first approver), likely due to stale or incomplete Onyx data for policy.employeeList at the moment of submission.

These logs capture the complete decision state at each branch point so we can confirm or disprove this hypothesis from production data before making any code changes.

What's logged

• getManagerAccountID: Which code path is taken (non-advanced workflow / no employee found / advanced workflow resolution), plus all inputs: employeeLogin, employeeSubmitsTo, defaultApprover, policyApprover, policyOwner, and the resolved managerAccountID.
• getSubmitToAccountID: Whether a rule approver was used vs falling through to getManagerAccountID.
• submitReport (IOU): Side-by-side comparison of the optimistic managerID (from getApprovalChain) vs the managerAccountID sent to the API (from getSubmitToAccountID), which can diverge.
• submitMoneyRequestOnSearch: Same diagnostic for the search-based submit path.

Fixed Issues

Part of https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/591864

Tests

None

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

None

QA Steps

None - Once this is on production, we need to have a report submitted for the customer and then the logs can be analyzed. I'll do that myself (@tgolen)

• 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[codecov]

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
src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts	56.39% <100.00%> (+0.22%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	71.71% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/libs/actions/Search.ts	23.72% <0.00%> (-0.16%)	⬇️
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@dangrous 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]

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the Prettier check failure by sorting the Log import to its correct alphabetical position in both src/libs/PolicyUtils.ts and src/libs/actions/Search.ts (commit dbcb5b7).

The other two failing checks are unrelated to the PR changes:

• verifySignedCommits: Fails because commit 9ca874a04f6 is unsigned. This is a commit signing configuration issue, not a code problem.
• checklist: Fails with TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'split') in the authorChecklist action. This appears to be a PR body formatting issue — the checklist parser can't find the expected checklist markers in the PR description.

[dangrous]

Logs seem fine! I'll defer to you @tgolen to confirm if this is what we want, but the logic is all sound and looks like we'll be logging plenty of info.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing verifySignedCommits check. The original commits on this branch were unsigned — I rebased the two PR commits onto current main so they are now properly signed with SSH signatures. The code changes are identical; only the commit signatures and base were updated.

[MelvinBot]

The verifySignedCommits check is now passing after the earlier rebase. All other checks are either passing or still running — no additional failures detected. Nothing further to fix at this time.

[MelvinBot]

The remaining failing check ("Check for unused styles") is unrelated to this PR. It failed during the git checkout step due to a transient GitHub Actions infrastructure error:

error: RPC failed; curl 56 GnuTLS recv error (-24): Decryption has failed.

The check never reached the actual "unused styles" analysis — it couldn't even clone the repo due to a TLS connection drop. This should pass on a re-run. I was unable to trigger the re-run automatically (requires approval), so please re-run the failed job manually.

[tgolen]

Thanks @dangrous. I hope it will be enough to figure out what's going on! Once the tests are passing, I'll merge this.

[github-actions]

🚧 @tgolen has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #81725.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-7a2fcec-b6c4e035c830c7cae51db42428dca6eff4f1458a/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-7a2fcec-23cb359e80517cef47d4c30ab29d1e11251fb25f/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://81725.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[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.