Block restricted field edits on closed expense reports by MelvinBot · Pull Request #84407 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-03-06T13:15:18Z

Explanation of Change

When workflows are disabled on a workspace, the policy's approvalMode is set to OPTIONAL (Submit & Close) and expense reports transition to CLOSED state (statusNum=2). The canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest function's RECEIPT return block checked various conditions (invoice report, scanning, per-diem, distance, permissions) but did not check for closed reports.

This gap allowed admin/manager users (who bypass the isClosedReport check in canEditMoneyRequest) to see the "Delete Receipt" button on closed reports. When they tapped it, the backend rejected the DetachReceipt API call, producing an "Unexpected error deleting this receipt" message.

This PR adds !isClosedReport(moneyRequestReport) to the RECEIPT return block's condition list, keeping all RECEIPT-related logic consolidated in one place.

Fixed Issues

$ #81493
PROPOSAL: #81493 (comment)

Tests

Log in as a workspace admin
Go to workspace settings → More features → Disable workflows
Go to LHN → Open workspace chat
Create a manual expense with a camera image, entering a merchant name
Open the expense → Tap the receipt image → Tap the 3-dot menu
Verify the "Delete receipt" option is not shown (previously it was shown and caused an unexpected error)

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Repeat the steps above while offline
Verify the "Delete receipt" option is still not shown on closed reports

QA Steps

Log in as a workspace admin on staging
Go to workspace settings → More features → Disable workflows
Create a manual expense with a camera receipt in the workspace chat
Open the expense → Tap the receipt → 3-dot menu
Verify the "Delete receipt" option does not appear
Re-enable workflows, create a new expense with receipt on an open report
Verify the "Delete receipt" option IS available on the open report (no regression)

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

When workflows are disabled, expense reports transition to CLOSED state but the restricted-field guard in canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest only checked for settled and approved reports, not closed ones. This allowed admin/manager users to see the delete receipt button on closed reports, leading to an unexpected error when the backend rejected the operation. Add isClosedReport check alongside the existing isSettled and isReportIDApproved checks to prevent editing restricted fields on closed reports. Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-06T13:15:46Z

I created this PR from an upstream branch since I don't have push access to your fork.

To take ownership of this branch and be able to push updates, run:

git remote add upstream https://github.com/Expensify/App.git
git fetch upstream claude-fixDeleteReceiptClosedReport
git checkout -b claude-fixDeleteReceiptClosedReport upstream/claude-fixDeleteReceiptClosedReport
git push -u origin claude-fixDeleteReceiptClosedReport

Then you can close this PR and open a new one from your fork.

codecov · 2026-03-06T13:22:44Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`77.31% <100.00%> (+0.11%)`	⬆️
... and 20 files with indirect coverage changes

truph01 · 2026-03-12T16:47:42Z

@MelvinBot This PR is ready for review

MelvinBot · 2026-03-12T16:49:37Z

Thanks truph01! All CI checks are passing ✅ and the PR is mergeable. It's currently assigned to the PullerBear team for review.

truph01 · 2026-03-12T16:54:20Z

@MelvinBot Mark this PR as ready for review

melvin-bot · 2026-03-12T16:55:42Z

@truph01 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 · 2026-03-12T16:55:44Z

Done! This PR has been marked as ready for review. 🚀

trjExpensify

Gotcha, so I'm right in thinking that if you natively went to Classic as an admin/approver. You wouldn't be able to delete the receipt from an expense on a closed report. Did you test that @truph01?

This gap allowed admin/manager users (who bypass the isClosedReport check in canEditMoneyRequest) to see the "Delete Receipt" button on closed reports. When they tapped it, the backend rejected the DetachReceipt API call, producing an "Unexpected error deleting this receipt" message.

truph01 · 2026-03-16T09:10:52Z

@MelvinBot Please merge main

…ptClosedReport Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-16T09:15:38Z

Merged main into this branch. The merge resolved cleanly (auto-merged src/libs/ReportUtils.ts).

melvin-bot · 2026-03-16T09:16:12Z

@grgia 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]

truph01 · 2026-03-16T09:56:18Z

@MelvinBot We should apply the fix for fieldToEdit === CONST.EDIT_REQUEST_FIELD.RECEIPT only

Instead of blocking all restricted field edits on closed reports, only block RECEIPT edits — matching the original issue scope. Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-16T09:58:51Z

Updated — the isClosedReport guard now applies only when fieldToEdit === CONST.EDIT_REQUEST_FIELD.RECEIPT, instead of blocking all restricted fields on closed reports.

truph01 · 2026-03-16T09:59:53Z

@trjExpensify

Gotcha, so I'm right in thinking that if you natively went to Classic as an admin/approver. You wouldn't be able to delete the receipt from an expense on a closed report. Did you test that @truph01?

In OD, I am unable to delete the receipt even if it isn't a closed report. Only the rotate and crop actions are available:

truph01 · 2026-03-16T10:01:03Z

@MelvinBot That condition can be added in here:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 4925 to 4934 in 81b04d8

    
           if (fieldToEdit === CONST.EDIT_REQUEST_FIELD.RECEIPT) { 
        
               return ( 
        
                   !isInvoiceReport(moneyRequestReport) && 
        
                   !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) && 
        
                   !isPerDiemRequest(transaction) && 
        
                   (!isDistanceRequest(transaction) || isManualDistanceRequestTransactionUtils(transaction)) && 
        
                   (isAdmin || isManager || isRequestor) && 
        
                   (isDeleteAction ? isRequestor : true) 
        
               ); 
        
           }

What do you think?

MelvinBot · 2026-03-16T10:05:36Z

Adding !isClosedReport(moneyRequestReport) as a condition inside the RECEIPT return block (lines 4925-4934) would work and keeps all RECEIPT-related logic consolidated in one place. That's a reasonable approach.

That said, there may be an even more comprehensive option worth considering: adding isClosedReport to the broader guard at line 4891:

if (isSettled(String(moneyRequestReport.reportID)) || isReportIDApproved(String(moneyRequestReport.reportID)) || isClosedReport(moneyRequestReport)) {
    return false;
}

This would block all restricted field edits on closed reports (AMOUNT, CURRENCY, MERCHANT, DATE, RECEIPT, DISTANCE, DISTANCE_RATE, REIMBURSABLE, REPORT) — matching how settled and approved reports are already handled. It would also make the existing REIMBURSABLE-specific isClosedReport check at line 4899 redundant, so it could be cleaned up.

The reasoning: if a report is closed, it's in a terminal state just like settled or approved. Allowing edits to some restricted fields (like AMOUNT or MERCHANT) on closed reports but not others seems inconsistent and could surface similar bugs for those fields in the future.

Happy to go with whichever approach you prefer — either your suggestion (RECEIPT block) or the broader guard.

truph01 · 2026-03-16T10:07:55Z

@MelvinBot Let's apply this:

Adding !isClosedReport(moneyRequestReport) as a condition inside the RECEIPT return block (lines 4925-4934) would work and keeps all RECEIPT-related logic consolidated in one place. That's a reasonable approach.

Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-16T10:10:38Z

Done! Moved the isClosedReport check from a standalone early-return guard into the RECEIPT return block, so all RECEIPT-related logic is consolidated in one place.

The net diff against main is now a single added line:

     if (fieldToEdit === CONST.EDIT_REQUEST_FIELD.RECEIPT) {
         return (
+            !isClosedReport(moneyRequestReport) &&
             !isInvoiceReport(moneyRequestReport) &&
             !isReceiptBeingScanned(transaction) &&
             !isPerDiemRequest(transaction) &&

truph01 · 2026-03-16T10:12:00Z

@MelvinBot The codecov is reduced here. Let's add/update unit test to cover the new change.

Tests that canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest returns false for the RECEIPT field when the expense report is closed, and true when open. Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-03-16T10:20:08Z

Added unit tests for the receipt field change in e4256d8. The new tests cover:

Closed report — verifies canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest returns false for the RECEIPT field when the expense report is closed (the fix this PR introduces)
Open report — verifies it returns true for the RECEIPT field on an open report (regression check)

Both tests set up an admin user on the policy so that canEditMoneyRequest passes (admins bypass the closed-report check there), which is the exact scenario that exposed the bug.

All 9 tests in canEditFieldOfMoneyRequestTest.ts pass.

truph01 · 2026-03-16T10:44:43Z

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 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.2026-03-16.at.17.43.48.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-16.at.17.39.53.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-03-16.at.17.42.07.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-16.at.17.38.12.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-16.at.17.35.40.mov

truph01 · 2026-03-17T17:46:48Z

@trjExpensify Could you check my comment?

trjExpensify

Cool, thanks! 👍

github-actions · 2026-03-18T07:52:35Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-18T07:57:42Z

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

github-actions · 2026-03-18T07:57:50Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #84407.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-fd3c052-84e475f-77d09b73609720c3600ee9a5e3eae06352e51080/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-fd3c052-84e475f-504ddab03ed9b6fbb0e6cb65555a77d56cfbdb77/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://84407.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-03-18T13:29:24Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.3.40-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-03-18T14:05:25Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.3.40-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot assigned truph01 Mar 6, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team March 6, 2026 13:15

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2026

[$250] Expense - When workflows are disabled, deleting receipt shows unexpected error. #81493

Open

7 tasks

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review March 12, 2026 16:55

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 12, 2026 16:55

melvin-bot bot requested review from truph01 and removed request for a team March 12, 2026 16:55

melvin-bot bot requested a review from trjExpensify March 12, 2026 16:55

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 12, 2026 16:55

trjExpensify reviewed Mar 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-fixDeleteRecei…

2a340ff

…ptClosedReport Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 16, 2026 09:15

melvin-bot bot requested a review from grgia March 16, 2026 09:16

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 16, 2026 09:16

Narrow closed-report guard to RECEIPT field only

cbbbc8c

Instead of blocking all restricted field edits on closed reports, only block RECEIPT edits — matching the original issue scope. Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

Move isClosedReport check into RECEIPT return block

b067a44

Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

Add unit tests for receipt field editing on closed reports

e4256d8

Tests that canEditFieldOfMoneyRequest returns false for the RECEIPT field when the expense report is closed, and true when open. Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>

trjExpensify approved these changes Mar 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

truph01 approved these changes Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

grgia approved these changes Mar 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

grgia merged commit fd3c052 into main Mar 18, 2026
33 checks passed

grgia deleted the claude-fixDeleteReceiptClosedReport branch March 18, 2026 07:47

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-03-18 #85646

Open

95 tasks

jponikarchuk mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2026

[$250] Expenses - Uploaded receipt is not displayed when create manual expense #85669

Closed

7 tasks

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Mar 6, 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!

MelvinBot commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 6, 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!

truph01 commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 16, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

truph01 commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

trjExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

MelvinBot commented Mar 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 6, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading