fix: un-report the transactions on the report (move to selfDM) when delete by lorretheboy · Pull Request #82619 · Expensify/App

lorretheboy · 2026-02-17T08:11:56Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #70591
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Login to Self-DM account
Create workspace
Create expense in that WS
Go to Search Reports --> Delete report just created
Verify that its transactions move to selfDM

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

website.android.mov

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

website.ios.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

website.mov

melvin-bot · 2026-02-17T08:13:12Z

@eh2077 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]

lorretheboy · 2026-02-17T08:13:58Z

@@ -824,7 +824,15 @@ function bulkDeleteReports(
        const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key];


First pass: Collect all report IDs that are being deleted
Second pass: Collect transaction IDs, but exclude any transactions whose reportID is in the list of reports being deleted

Can you add comments for the two loops?

Added @eh2077

github-actions · 2026-02-17T08:15:53Z

+
+    for (const key of Object.keys(selectedTransactions)) {
+        const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key];
+        if (selectedItem.action === CONST.SEARCH.ACTION_TYPES.VIEW && key === selectedItem.reportID) {


❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

The condition selectedItem.action === CONST.SEARCH.ACTION_TYPES.VIEW && key === selectedItem.reportID is duplicated across both loops (first used to collect report IDs, then used as a continue guard in the second loop). The iteration over Object.keys(selectedTransactions) and the const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key] lookup are also duplicated.

Since the two-pass approach is needed (the second loop depends on the completed reportIDList), you can still eliminate the duplication by using a Set of report keys from the first loop, then simply checking membership in the second loop instead of re-evaluating the same condition:

const reportIDSet = new Set<string>(); for (const key of Object.keys(selectedTransactions)) { const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key]; if (selectedItem.action === CONST.SEARCH.ACTION_TYPES.VIEW && key === selectedItem.reportID) { reportIDSet.add(selectedItem.reportID); } } const reportIDList = Array.from(reportIDSet); for (const key of Object.keys(selectedTransactions)) { if (reportIDSet.has(key)) { continue; } const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key]; if (\!selectedItem.reportID || \!reportIDSet.has(selectedItem.reportID)) { transactionIDList.push(key); } }

This removes the duplicated condition and the duplicated variable lookup, and as a bonus, using a Set makes the .includes() check O(1) instead of O(n).

Please rate this suggestion with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve! Reactions are used to monitor reviewer efficiency.

eh2077

@lorretheboy thanks for the PR! Please also add unit tests to cover the change 🙇

eh2077 · 2026-02-17T11:55:43Z

@@ -824,7 +824,15 @@ function bulkDeleteReports(
        const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key];


Can you add comments for the two loops?

lorretheboy · 2026-02-18T08:00:15Z

@eh2077 Hi, do you get this 403 forbidden issue when run locally? Currently, I am facing this issue and couldn't run local

eh2077 · 2026-02-18T08:35:58Z

It works well for me, can you clear cache and try again?

eh2077 · 2026-02-19T14:18:06Z

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
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 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.ts 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.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this 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.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-02-19.at.11.04.24.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-02-19.at.11.02.46.PM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-02-19.at.11.13.29.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-19.at.11.06.17.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-02-19.at.11.01.10.PM.mov

eh2077

Works well! @lorretheboy Please have a look at https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/82619/changes#r2816667749, thanks

…ent/70591

eh2077 · 2026-02-21T01:22:19Z

@lorretheboy Can you also add unit tests to cover these cases? thanks!

…ent/70591

lorretheboy · 2026-02-21T19:14:29Z

@eh2077 added tests

lorretheboy · 2026-02-21T19:52:24Z

I run npm run prettier locally without any changes, but don't know why it is failed here

eh2077 · 2026-02-24T15:15:43Z

@lorretheboy Can you try merge with main again please? thanks

…ent/70591

lorretheboy · 2026-02-24T15:17:51Z

Merged main

codecov · 2026-02-24T15:26:23Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/actions/Search.ts	`24.15% <100.00%> (+0.64%)`	⬆️
... and 18 files with indirect coverage changes

github-actions · 2026-02-25T16:32:22Z

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

github-actions · 2026-02-25T16:38:25Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #82619.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-2cd38f8-0dbc7e1-f23c824995d4cfe3c6aef0d059fc9d14e7c8b1dc/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-2cd38f8-0dbc7e1-177e7e714a38e4f50f6e08f8b14ddc54c1a7835c/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://82619.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-02-25T18:25:07Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.3.26-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-02-27T14:56:27Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 9.3.26-8 🚀

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

feat: unreport expenses instead of delete it

b323767

melvin-bot Bot assigned lorretheboy Feb 17, 2026

lorretheboy marked this pull request as ready for review February 17, 2026 08:13

lorretheboy requested review from a team as code owners February 17, 2026 08:13

melvin-bot Bot requested review from eh2077 and heyjennahay and removed request for a team and heyjennahay February 17, 2026 08:13

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team February 17, 2026 08:13

lorretheboy commented Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

lorretheboy mentioned this pull request Feb 17, 2026

[$250] Can't select an empty report from the Reports > Reports page #70591

Closed

16 tasks

github-actions Bot reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

eh2077 reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

eh2077 reviewed Feb 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

lorretheboy added 2 commits February 21, 2026 01:15

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into improvem…

414c755

…ent/70591

chore: add code comment

c7e83e6

lorretheboy added 2 commits February 22, 2026 01:53

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into improvem…

5a81ec6

…ent/70591

feat: add test

bd19218

lorretheboy added 2 commits February 22, 2026 02:16

feat: add test

4a19f61

feat: add test

bde6686

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Expensify/App into improvem…

36d87d1

…ent/70591

fix: prettier

656a935

eh2077 approved these changes Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from luacmartins February 25, 2026 13:23

luacmartins approved these changes Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

luacmartins merged commit 2cd38f8 into Expensify:main Feb 25, 2026
30 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-02-25 #83466

Closed

		@@ -824,7 +824,15 @@ function bulkDeleteReports(
		const selectedItem = selectedTransactions[key];

Conversation

lorretheboy commented Feb 17, 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 17, 2026

Uh oh!

lorretheboy Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

eh2077 Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lorretheboy Feb 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

❌ CONSISTENCY-3 (docs)

Uh oh!

eh2077 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

eh2077 Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented Feb 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

eh2077 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Feb 21, 2026

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Feb 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

eh2077 commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

lorretheboy commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Feb 24, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

lorretheboy commented Feb 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading

eh2077 commented Feb 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

lorretheboy commented Feb 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Feb 24, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading