Allow submitters to select "Received reimbursement" option

[nabi-ebrahimi]

Explanation of Change

NewDot now includes a Received payment option in the report More menu for eligible submitters. When selected, it shows a confirmation modal and then uses the existing pay-elsewhere flow to mark the report as paid, while staying hidden for true bank-payment scenarios.

Fixed Issues

$ #83035
PROPOSAL: #83035 (comment)

Tests

1. Sign in as UserA.
2. Create an expense and submit it to the workspace.
3. Sign in as UserB.
4. Approve the report.
5. Switch back to UserA.
6. Open the report and inspect the More menu.
7. Verify that there is a Received payment option.

• 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

• 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 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

Screen.Recording.2026-03-24.at.11.18.15.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-03-24.at.11.23.11.AM.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-03-24.at.11.32.54.AM.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-24.at.11.37.58.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-03-24.at.9.43.57.AM.mov

[melvin-bot]

Hey, I noticed you changed src/languages/en.ts in a PR from a fork. For security reasons, translations are not generated automatically for PRs from forks.

If you want to automatically generate translations for other locales, an Expensify employee will have to:

1. Look at the code and make sure there are no malicious changes.
2. Run the Generate static translations GitHub workflow. If you have write access and the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Alternatively, if you are an external contributor, you can run the translation script locally with your own OpenAI API key. To learn more, try running:

npx ts-node ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --help

Typically, you'd want to translate only what you changed by running npx ts-node ./scripts/generateTranslations.ts --compare-ref main

[melvin-bot]

@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]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f6b4405330

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[JmillsExpensify]

Joe is leading this one up

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@nabi-ebrahimi I want to test this on an adhoc build. I assume I need to wait for the BE PRs to be deployed to do that, yeah?

[Pujan92]

@MelvinBot review

[MelvinBot]

🤖 PR Review

CI Failures (must fix)

1. Typecheck: Missing translation keys (confirmPaymentReceived, receivedPayment, receivedPaymentConfirmation, yesIHaveReceivedPayment) in all non-English locale files (de.ts, es.ts, fr.ts, it.ts, ja.ts, nl.ts, pl.ts, pt-BR.ts, zh-hans.ts). Run the translation generation workflow or add the keys manually.

2. Prettier: MoneyReportHeader.tsx and IOU/index.ts need formatting. Run npm run prettier.

3. Tests: TranslateTest.ts fails because the new iou.* keys exist in en.ts but not in other locales.

All three failures stem from the same root cause: missing translations.

Code Review

Issue: Delegate check after confirmation modal

In MoneyReportHeader.tsx:1787, the isDelegateAccessRestricted check runs after the confirmation modal. The existing confirmApproval and confirmPayment callbacks check delegate access first, before showing any UI. Pujan92 flagged this same issue in their review comment — the delegate check should be moved before showConfirmModal.

Issue: Missing test coverage

tests/unit/ReportSecondaryActionUtilsTest.ts has tests for every other secondary action (SUBMIT, APPROVE, UNAPPROVE, CANCEL_PAYMENT, HOLD, etc.) but none for RECEIVED_PAYMENT. Tests should cover:

• Shown for: approved/closed/settled expense report where current user is submitter, not admin, no bank payment actions
• Hidden for: non-expense reports, non-submitter, admin role, isWaitingOnBankAccount, reports with bank payment actions

Minor: Consider guarding against zero-reimbursable reports

isReceivedPaymentAction doesn't check whether report.total - report.nonReimbursableTotal > 0. A report where all expenses are non-reimbursable could still show the "Received payment" option. While this isn't checked by other predicates either, it may create a confusing UX for the submitter. Worth confirming this is intentional.

[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/CONST/index.ts	92.30% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/API/types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/libs/ReportSecondaryActionUtils.ts	94.10% <94.73%> (+0.24%)	⬆️
...eaderActions/MoneyReportHeaderSecondaryActions.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts	78.64% <0.00%> (-1.67%)	⬇️
... and 16 files with indirect coverage changes

[nabi-ebrahimi]

@Pujan92 Could you please take another look at the PR when you have a chance? I’ve addressed all the feedbacks. Thanks

[joekaufmanexpensify]

@nabi-ebrahimi is this ready for me to test too?

[nabi-ebrahimi]

@nabi-ebrahimi is this ready for me to test too?

@joekaufmanexpensify Yes it is ready for you to test.

[github-actions]

🚧 @joekaufmanexpensify 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 #86174.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
⏩ SKIPPED ⏩	⏩ SKIPPED ⏩
The build for Android was skipped	The build for iOS was skipped

Web 🕸️
https://86174.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Testing well! One difference I noticed between OldDot and NewDot after an employee taps Received payment on a report:

• In NewDot, admins have the option to Cancel payment after an employee confirms receipt of payment, which moves the report back to back to either Approved or Done, depending on whether Approvals afre enabled on the workspace.
• In OldDot, admins instead have the option to Unapprove after the employee confirms receipt of payment (even when Approvals are disabled on the workspace. This moves the report back to Outstanding.

The OldDot behavior doesn't make a ton of sense to me. I confirmed the report state shown in both platforms is consistent with either option used. So, I'm thinking we should go with Cancel payment in NewDot, since it more closely matches what's happening here and we can probably leave OldDot as is. Thoughts @Expensify/product?

NewDot

2026-04-17_14-47-38.mp4

OldDot

2026-04-17_14-48-12.mp4

[trjExpensify]

Yeah, I think we stick with Cancel payment which we already have. That requires no change, right? IIRC, that button shows on manually reimbursed reports in the paid state and ACH reimbursed reports up until the Nacha file cut off.

[joekaufmanexpensify]

Yep! No changes from what's already in this PR for NewDot. I posted the above to make sure everyone else is cool with this button name differing from the button name in classic.