Fix: Deleting one split in Top Spenders removes both splits by marufsharifi · Pull Request #86090 · Expensify/App

marufsharifi · 2026-03-23T12:34:53Z

Explanation of Change

This change fixes a Reports UX issue in the grouped view, like Top Spenders. Previously, when a user deleted one split expense from a grouped result, both splits could disappear until the list was manually refreshed or collapsed and expanded again.

With this update, grouped search results stay in sync immediately after the delete. The removed split disappears, the remaining transaction stays visible, and the report reflects the correct state without requiring any extra user action.

Fixed Issues

$ #79138
PROPOSAL: #79138 (comment)

Tests

Create two manual expenses with a date from last month.
Open the report of the just-created expenses.
Select one of the expenses.
Tap on the dropdown menu and select "Split."
Save the split amount.
Navigate to "Reports" > "Top Spenders."
Expand the results displayed.
Open one of the splits.
Tap on "More" and delete the split.
Verify that when one split of an expense is deleted while on the "Top Spenders" section, the remaining split is still visible.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as Tests.

QA Steps

Same as Tests.

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

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-03-23.at.5.36.05.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-23.at.5.51.22.PM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-03-23.at.5.59.59.PM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-23.at.6.12.31.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-23.at.5.24.34.PM.mov

…penders

codecov · 2026-03-23T12:43:46Z

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/components/MoneyRequestHeader.tsx	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/components/MoneyRequestHeaderActions.tsx	`12.50% <ø> (ø)`
src/components/MoneyRequestHeaderPrimaryAction.tsx	`3.44% <ø> (ø)`
src/hooks/useSelectedTransactionsActions.ts	`84.26% <100.00%> (+0.17%)`	⬆️
src/components/MoneyReportHeader.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
src/hooks/useDeleteTransactions.ts	`23.80% <66.66%> (+1.85%)`	⬆️
src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx	`57.02% <0.00%> (-0.12%)`	⬇️
...ort/ContextMenu/PopoverReportActionContextMenu.tsx	`43.94% <0.00%> (ø)`
.../components/MoneyRequestHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx	`1.04% <0.00%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
src/pages/iou/SplitExpensePage.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
... and 2 more
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

melvin-bot · 2026-03-24T03:20:30Z

@ShridharGoel 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]

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0c87e87e2f

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

src/libs/actions/IOU/Split.ts

JmillsExpensify

Those testing steps make sense to me

ShridharGoel · 2026-03-27T20:50:10Z

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.2026-03-28.at.2.56.52.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-28.at.2.55.53.AM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2026-03-28.at.2.32.25.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-28.at.2.52.33.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-28.at.2.27.18.AM.mov

ShridharGoel · 2026-03-27T21:10:36Z

src/pages/inbox/report/ContextMenu/PopoverReportActionContextMenu.tsx

                });
            } else if (originalMessage?.IOUTransactionID) {
-                deleteTransactions([originalMessage.IOUTransactionID], duplicateTransactions, duplicateTransactionViolations, currentSearchHash);
+                deleteTransactions([originalMessage.IOUTransactionID], duplicateTransactions, duplicateTransactionViolations, undefined);


Why is undefined being passed here?

ShridharGoel · 2026-03-27T21:10:46Z

src/pages/ReportDetailsPage.tsx

            });
        } else if (iouTransactionID) {
-            deleteTransactions([iouTransactionID], duplicateTransactions, duplicateTransactionViolations, currentSearchHash, isSingleTransactionView);
+            deleteTransactions([iouTransactionID], duplicateTransactions, duplicateTransactionViolations, undefined, isSingleTransactionView);


undefined is intentional here. These are generic/non-search flows, and SearchContext can still retain the last search hash after leaving Search.
Passing currentSearchHash from these entry points could update stale grouped snapshots from a previous search. Search-origin flows still pass the hash where appropriate, but here we intentionally avoid that to prevent broader regressions.

marufsharifi · 2026-03-31T03:46:13Z

@ShridharGoel, gentle bump. thanks.

luacmartins · 2026-03-31T22:40:29Z

@marufsharifi conflicts

marufsharifi · 2026-04-01T04:14:55Z

@luacmartins, resolved the conflicts. thanks.

luacmartins

This is a bit late, but I was wondering if we need all the Search specific logic for the delete cases. Onyx merges any live data updates into the snapshots already, so if we'red deleting a particular transaction ID, that'd be deleted from the snapshots too.

marufsharifi · 2026-04-02T05:42:02Z

This is a bit late, but I was wondering if we need all the Search specific logic for the delete cases. Onyx merges any live data updates into the snapshots already, so if we'red deleting a particular transaction ID, that'd be deleted from the snapshots too.

@luacmartins Thanks for the review.
I looked into this again, and I agree Onyx already propagates simple transaction deletions into snapshots. In this flow though, the grouped Search state also needs to stay in sync.
I tried narrowing the delete-side Search handling locally, and that left the grouped view out of sync: the row updated, but the grouped header count stayed stale. So I kept the broader Search snapshot handling for this split-delete path to keep the grouped Search UI consistent.

luacmartins · 2026-04-02T14:48:40Z

That makes sense. The groups are not updated because there's no live key equivalent of them.

OSBotify · 2026-04-02T15:02:00Z

✋ 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 · 2026-04-02T15:04:54Z

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

github-actions · 2026-04-02T15:09:46Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #86090.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-8a84b22-3c91e7f-518b99749327a358af84d80713c5fb97c8f1ea93/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-8a84b22-3c91e7f-710e9a129e629dc3420a2ce692f40f34e00b8cec/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://86090.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-04-02T20:19:47Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.3.52-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android
iOS

MelvinBot · 2026-04-02T20:21:29Z

No help site changes are required for this PR.

Reason: This is a bug fix that corrects how grouped search results (e.g., Top Spenders) update after deleting a split expense. No new features, UI labels, settings, or workflows were introduced.

I reviewed the two relevant help articles:

docs/articles/new-expensify/reports-and-expenses/Split-Expenses.md — already covers splitting, editing, and removing splits accurately
docs/articles/new-expensify/insights/View-the-Top-Spenders-report.md — already covers navigating and expanding grouped results accurately

Both articles remain correct after this fix.

lanitochka17 · 2026-04-02T21:16:59Z

Deploy Blocker ##87015 was identified to be related to this PR.

fix: prevent both splits from disappearing when deleting one in Top S…

0c87e87

…penders

melvin-bot bot assigned marufsharifi Mar 23, 2026

marufsharifi marked this pull request as ready for review March 24, 2026 03:20

marufsharifi requested review from a team as code owners March 24, 2026 03:20

melvin-bot bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and ShridharGoel and removed request for a team March 24, 2026 03:20

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 24, 2026 03:20

chatgpt-codex-connector bot reviewed Mar 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/libs/actions/IOU/Split.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

marufsharifi added 2 commits March 24, 2026 14:32

fix reverse split search snapshot updates

53ffb69

fix delete action tests for search hash guard

c29625e

JmillsExpensify previously approved these changes Mar 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/top-spenders-split-deletion

eb76b8b

marufsharifi dismissed JmillsExpensify’s stale review via eb76b8b March 25, 2026 14:05

ShridharGoel reviewed Mar 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

ShridharGoel approved these changes Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from luacmartins March 31, 2026 22:31

Merge branch 'main' into fix/top-spenders-split-deletion

4c4832c

luacmartins reviewed Apr 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/top-spenders-split-deletion

31d6e85

luacmartins approved these changes Apr 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

luacmartins merged commit 8a84b22 into Expensify:main Apr 2, 2026
31 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-04-02 #86989

Open

lanitochka17 mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

Reports - Original expense remains after splitting expense offline #87015

Open

7 tasks

lanitochka17 mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2026

[$250] Reports - Deleting one split from "Top Spenders" section, makes both splits disappear. #79138

Open

7 tasks

Conversation

marufsharifi commented Mar 23, 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!

codecov bot commented Mar 23, 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!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 24, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JmillsExpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel commented Mar 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Mar 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ShridharGoel Mar 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marufsharifi Mar 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Apr 1, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marufsharifi commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

luacmartins commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

lanitochka17 commented Apr 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

marufsharifi commented Mar 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 23, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

ShridharGoel commented Mar 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading