Migrate split thread comments to the original transaction's optimistic thread when reverting a split by rayane-d · Pull Request #86469 · Expensify/App

rayane-d · 2026-03-26T17:25:31Z

Explanation of Change

When reverting a split transaction, user comments added to split transaction threads were permanently lost because all splits and their threads were deleted without preserving comments.
This PR adds optimistic data to updateSplitTransactions so that when isReverseSplitOperation is triggered, comments from the chosen split's transaction thread are migrated to the restored original transaction's new optimistic thread before the split is deleted. It also sends transactionThreadReportID and createdReportActionIDForThread to the backend so that the optimistic thread ID matches the ID of the thread cerated in BE.
Changes in Split.ts:

Detect non-deleted ADDCOMMENT actions on the chosen split's thread before reverting
Conditionally generate an optimistic transaction thread for the restored original transaction (only when comments exist)
Build optimistic/success/failure Onyx data to move comments to the new thread
Update childVisibleActionCount, childCommenterCount, childLastVisibleActionCreated, and childOldestFourAccountIDs on the new IOU action of the restored transaction

Fixed Issues

$ #76011
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Go to the Policy Expense chat.
Create a $100 expense with merchant "Coffee Shop".
Open the expense report.
Open the More menu.
Click the Split button.
Split into two: $60 and $40. Save the splits.
On the expense report, send the message "test expense report".
Open the $60 split transaction thread.
In the transaction thread, send the message "test thread 1".
Open the $40 split transaction thread.
In the transaction thread, send the message "test thread 2".
Go Offline
In the $40 split transaction, click the More menu > Delete (Or: Click the Edit splits button in More menu and remove the $40 split).
Verify the expense report displays a multi-transactions view with two transactions: the restored original transaction with the amount updated to $60, and the deleted $40 split.
Verify the restored original transaction has the amount updated to $60.
Verify the restored original transaction preview does not have strikethrough formatting.
Verify the restored original transaction preview has a "1" child comments count indicator.
Verify the deleted $40 split preview is displayed with strikethrough formatting.
Verify the expense report still contains the "test expense report" message.
Open the restored $60 original transaction thread.
Verify the thread contains the "test thread 1" message (migrated from the $60 kept split's thread).
Go Online
Verify the split has been fully reverted, and the $60 original transaction is restored as a regular expense.
Verify the report displays a single-transaction view (the deleted $40 split is removed by the server).
Verify the "test expense report" message is visible in the report.
Verify the "test thread 1" message is visible in the transaction thread.
Verify both messages appear combined in the single-transaction expense report view.
Create another $25 manual expense within the same expense report.
Verify the expense report shows a multi-transactions view ($60 + $25).
Verify the "test expense report" message is displayed in the expense report main chat.
Verify the "test thread 1" message is displayed in the $60 transaction's thread.
Verify the $25 expense's transaction thread is empty.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

The offline behavior is tested in the tests section

QA Steps

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

Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Screen.Recording.2026-03-27.at.1.21.44.AM.mov

Simulator.Screen.Recording.-.iPhone.16.Pro.Max.mov

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

When reverting a split, user comments in the chosen split's transaction thread are migrated to the restored original transaction's thread by the backend. This adds matching frontend optimistic data so the UI reflects the migration immediately, and passes the optimistic thread IDs to the backend so both sides use the same report IDs.

…read comments When reverting a split, user comments are moved from the split's transaction thread to the restored original transaction's thread. The parent IOU action on the expense report needs its childVisibleActionCount, childCommenterCount, childLastVisibleActionCreated, and childOldestFourAccountIDs updated to reflect the migrated comments, otherwise the thread reply indicator shows 0 replies. On failure, these fields are reset since the comments remain in the split thread.

Updated the type of successMovedComments from a Record to OnyxCollection for better type safety and clarity in handling migrated comments during split transactions.

codecov · 2026-03-26T17:34:56Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/actions/IOU/Split.ts	`81.70% <100.00%> (+0.72%)`	⬆️
... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

Updated the logic for retrieving the revertSplitIOUAction to use getIOUActionForTransactionID. Additionally, refactored the filtering of splitThreadUserComments to utilize isActionOfType.

Verifies that when reverting a split transaction (isReverseSplitOperation), user comments from the chosen split's transaction thread are migrated to the restored original transaction's new thread. The test creates a workspace expense, splits it into two, injects a comment on one split's thread, then reverts the split and asserts the comment appears in the new transaction thread with correct data.

Verify that after reverting a split, the migrated comment is no longer accessible from the old split transaction thread (which is deleted during the revert operation).

Verify the original transaction is restored with correct amount and currency, the chosen split is force-deleted, and the other split is marked with pendingAction: delete.

Verify the new IOU action has correct actionName, IOUTransactionID, amount, currency, and type.

Verify the new IOU action has correct childVisibleActionCount, childCommenterCount, childOldestFourAccountIDs, and childLastVisibleActionCreated reflecting the migrated comments.

melvin-bot · 2026-03-27T00:25:13Z

@suneox 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]

suneox · 2026-03-30T16:41:46Z

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

CleanShot.2026-03-30.at.23.53.25.5.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

CleanShot.2026-03-30.at.23.56.36.6.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

CleanShot.2026-03-30.at.23.48.44.3.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

CleanShot.2026-03-30.at.23.42.46.2.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Current PR

CleanShot.2026-03-31.at.00.16.05.1.mp4

Latest staging

CleanShot.2026-03-31.at.00.07.15.1.mp4

suneox · 2026-03-30T17:26:13Z

@rayane-d There is a conflict, and we have an issue on iOS/mWeb. The error page briefly appears (1:11) then goes into an infinite loop when using “go back.” but This issue cannot be reproduced on the latest staging.

Current PR

CleanShot.2026-03-31.at.00.18.59.1.mp4

Latest staging

CleanShot.2026-03-31.at.00.11.10.2.mp4

suneox · 2026-03-30T17:50:33Z

I’ve merged the latest main into the current PR, and this issue can be resolved.

CleanShot.2026-03-31.at.00.44.36.1.mp4

suneox · 2026-03-30T18:06:21Z

@rayane-d Could you simplify the test steps?

Here is the current behavior is observed from steps 14–19, we haven't any transaction with amount 100$

And it the same for steps 22–26, only remaining transaction with amount 60$

And for steps 27–31, I think we don’t need them.

rayane-d · 2026-03-30T20:29:13Z

Here is the current behavior is observed from steps 14–19, we haven't any transaction with amount 100$
And it the same for steps 22–26, only remaining transaction with amount 60$

I've corrected the test steps - I meant to reference the $60 transaction.

And for steps 27–31, I think we don’t need them.

Steps 27–31 ensure that the comments are migrated to the transaction thread rather than the on-transaction expense chat report. This can be verified by adding another expense to trigger the multi-transaction view.

rayane-d added 3 commits March 26, 2026 18:06

Refactor successMovedComments type in updateSplitTransactions function

d291155

Updated the type of successMovedComments from a Record to OnyxCollection for better type safety and clarity in handling migrated comments during split transactions.

melvin-bot bot assigned rayane-d Mar 26, 2026

rayane-d added 9 commits March 26, 2026 18:42

Refactor IOU action retrieval in updateSplitTransactions function

ebb1fd1

Updated the logic for retrieving the revertSplitIOUAction to use getIOUActionForTransactionID. Additionally, refactored the filtering of splitThreadUserComments to utilize isActionOfType.

Renamed variable splitThreadUserComments to splitThreadComments

2856d9c

fix lint error

001b346

Assert split thread comments are removed after revert

c4e70f1

Verify that after reverting a split, the migrated comment is no longer accessible from the old split transaction thread (which is deleted during the revert operation).

Assert transactions data state after split revert

de34560

Verify the original transaction is restored with correct amount and currency, the chosen split is force-deleted, and the other split is marked with pendingAction: delete.

Assert IOU action properties after split revert

9e2c91a

Verify the new IOU action has correct actionName, IOUTransactionID, amount, currency, and type.

Assert IOU action child comment counts after split revert

3181a9d

Verify the new IOU action has correct childVisibleActionCount, childCommenterCount, childOldestFourAccountIDs, and childLastVisibleActionCreated reflecting the migrated comments.

Merge branch 'main' into migrate-split-thread-comments

a0a3b8e

rayane-d changed the title ~~Migrate split thread comments to the original transaction's optimistic thread~~ Migrate split thread comments to the original transaction's optimistic thread when reverting a split Mar 26, 2026

fix type errors

1ec553c

rayane-d marked this pull request as ready for review March 27, 2026 00:25

rayane-d requested review from a team as code owners March 27, 2026 00:25

melvin-bot bot requested review from heyjennahay and suneox and removed request for a team March 27, 2026 00:25

melvin-bot bot removed the request for review from a team March 27, 2026 00:25

rayane-d mentioned this pull request Mar 27, 2026

[$250] Split - After reverting split, messages in the other split disappear #76011

Open

8 tasks

resolve conflicts

1e2694c

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into migrate-split-thread-comments

ab3cdca

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into migrate-split-thread-comments

846a33c

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Migrate split thread comments to the original transaction's optimistic thread when reverting a split#86469

Migrate split thread comments to the original transaction's optimistic thread when reverting a split#86469
rayane-d wants to merge 16 commits intoExpensify:mainfrom
rayane-d:migrate-split-thread-comments

rayane-d commented Mar 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 26, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 27, 2026

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

rayane-d commented Mar 26, 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 26, 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 27, 2026

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

rayane-d commented Mar 30, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

rayane-d commented Mar 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 26, 2026 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

suneox commented Mar 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading