Use deterministic default avatar instead of gray fallback when personal details unavailable

[allgandalf]

Explanation of Change

When a user is invited to an expense report, their personal details may not have loaded yet. In this case, several functions in ReportUtils.ts were falling back to FallbackAvatar (a generic gray silhouette SVG). This looks wrong because once personal details load, the user gets a deterministic colorful avatar based on their accountID.

This PR replaces FallbackAvatar with getDefaultAvatarURL({accountID}) in the following functions:

• getIconsForParticipants
• getParticipantIcon
• getIconsForExpenseRequest
• getIconsForChatThread
• getIconsForIOUReport (both managerIcon and ownerIcon)

The two remaining usages of FallbackAvatar are correct -- they handle cases where no accountID exists at all (this edge case is covered by unit tests).

This is a defensive FE improvement. It pairs with a backend fix in Auth that ensures personal details are sent to invitees.

Fixed Issues

$ #85240
PROPOSAL: #85240 (comment)

Tests

1. Have 3 user accounts: User A, User B, and User C
2. [User A] Submit two expenses to User B
3. [User A] Go to the expense report
4. [User A] Send a message containing User C mention
5. [User A] Invite User C by clicking "Invite them" on the whisper
6. [User C] Navigate to inbox
7. [User C] Verify the expense report chat appears on LHN with a colorful default avatar for User A (not a gray silhouette) — even if User A's personal details haven't fully loaded yet
8. [User C] Open the chat and verify the report header also shows the colorful default avatar for User A
9. Verify that once personal details load, the avatar updates to the correct one
10. Verify that existing chats with loaded personal details still show the correct avatar

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

1. Go offline before personal details have loaded
2. Verify avatars in report headers and LHN show a colorful default avatar (not gray silhouette) for users whose accountID is known
3. Go back online and verify avatars update correctly once personal details load

QA Steps

1. Have 3 user accounts: User A, User B, and User C
2. [User A] Submit two expenses to User B
3. [User A] Go to the expense report
4. [User A] Send a message containing User C mention
5. [User A] Invite User C by clicking "Invite them" on the whisper
6. [User C] Navigate to inbox
7. [User C] Verify the expense report chat appears on LHN with a colorful default avatar for User A (not a gray silhouette)
8. Verify that existing chats with loaded personal details still show the correct avatar

• 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[melvin-bot]

@hoangzinh 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: 95ed97e962

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9d4b1793b8

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".

[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/libs/ReportUtils.ts	82.46% <100.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

[hoangzinh]

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

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-04-10.at.17.18.57.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-04-10.at.17.16.20.web.mov

[hoangzinh]

@allgandalf can you please upload recordings?

[allgandalf]

@hoangzinh kinda occupied with domain control project today, can you please proceed as it is in the meantime, i will find time later today for this, but don't want to block you from reviewing the code 🙇

[allgandalf]

bump @hoangzinh

[hoangzinh]

Verify that chats where no accountID exists still show the gray fallback avatar

@allgandalf just wanna confirm, we will show fallback avatar instead of avatar of [A] in this case, won't we? I did expect that [C] should see avatar of [A] in this case

[allgandalf]

@MelvinBot what do you think about this #86713 (comment)

[MelvinBot]

Good question. Test step 9 ("chats where no accountID exists") is about an edge case where the accountID itself is undefined/null — not the User A/B/C scenario.

In the User C scenario from the test steps:

• User A does have an accountID, but User C may not have User A's personal details loaded yet
• Before this PR: User C would see a gray silhouette (FallbackAvatar) for User A
• After this PR: User C sees a deterministic colorful avatar based on User A's accountID — which is correct, because the accountID is known even when personal details haven't loaded

You can see this in the diff — places where an accountID might be undefined keep the FallbackAvatar as a final fallback:

source: actorDetails?.avatar ?? (actorAccountID ? getDefaultAvatarURL({accountID: actorAccountID}) : FallbackAvatar)

So to directly answer: yes, User C should see a colorful avatar for User A (not gray), since User A's accountID is available. The gray fallback is only for truly unknown users (no accountID at all), which is a rare edge case.

[allgandalf]

@MelvinBot so i need to update my test case right ?

[MelvinBot]

Yes — test step 9 is confusing as written because the User A/B/C scenario always has accountIDs. I'd suggest either:

1. Clarify it: Change step 9 to something like "Verify that the two remaining FallbackAvatar usages (where actorAccountID/managerID/ownerAccountID is undefined) are unaffected" — but this is really a code-level concern, not a manual test.
2. Remove it: The edge case (no accountID at all) is already covered by the unit tests in ReportUtilsTest.ts, and it's not practically reproducible via manual testing.

Either way, the reviewer's point is valid — in the described scenario, User C should see User A's colorful avatar, not a gray fallback.

[allgandalf]

can you please give me updated test steps

[allgandalf]

@MelvinBot #86713 (comment), also please update PR description accordingly

[MelvinBot]

Updated the PR description with clearer test steps. Key changes:

• Removed the confusing step about "chats where no accountID exists" — that's a code-level edge case (where actorAccountID is undefined) that's covered by the unit tests, not manually reproducible
• Clarified that User C should see a colorful default avatar for User A (not gray), since User A's accountID is known even before personal details load
• Added a step to verify the report header avatar (not just LHN)
• Added a step to verify avatar updates once personal details load
• Clarified the Explanation of Change to note the "no accountID" edge case is covered by unit tests

[allgandalf]

Verify that chats where no accountID exists still show the gray fallback avatar

@allgandalf just wanna confirm, we will show fallback avatar instead of avatar of [A] in this case, won't we? I did expect that [C] should see avatar of [A] in this case

@hoangzinh are you blocked on anything else from my side?

[hoangzinh]

@allgandalf, my original question is: when user [A] uploaded their avatar. So should [C] see the avatar of [A] or a colorful default avatar for User [A] in this case?

[allgandalf]

@hoangzinh great question! C will see A's actual uploaded avatar

the BE code at formatNewDotPersonalDetails always sends the avatar NVP if its set (custom uploaded URL), and only falls back to the colorful default when its empty. so with the BE fix in https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/20746, when C is invited:

• if A uploaded a custom avatar → BE sends A's custom avatar URL to C → C sees A's real avatar
• if A never uploaded one → BE sends the default colorful avatar URL → C sees A's deterministic colorful default

the FE fix in this PR is just a defensive fallback for the race condition where personalDetails is entirely missing in Onyx (briefly during load). once personalDetails arrive from the BE, C will always see A's actual avatar, whether custom or default

[hoangzinh]

@allgandalf here is what I tested. [C] only sees A's colorful default util [C] click on the chat on LHN, then be able to see A's real avatar

Screen.Recording.2026-04-23.at.16.22.55.mov