Feat: Manual expense flow UI refactor - r3

[ChavdaSachin]

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #82586
PROPOSAL:

Tests

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// 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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[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
.../components/MoneyRequestConfirmationListFooter.tsx	52.20% <100.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️
...es/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepConfirmation.tsx	56.00% <77.77%> (+0.12%)	⬆️
src/pages/iou/request/IOURequestStartPage.tsx	68.02% <58.33%> (-1.10%)	⬇️
src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx	66.02% <53.19%> (-2.86%)	⬇️
... and 113 files with indirect coverage changes

[shawnborton]

@ChavdaSachin while you are in here, can you make it so that the merchant field shows before description? We're finding that it makes more sense for the manual expense creation flow to type the merchant before the description. We also show the merchant before the description in the expenses table as well. Thanks!

[ChavdaSachin]

Sure thing.

[ChavdaSachin]

@shawnborton, a small problem.

For the top participant row("To" field): when there's no default workspace, what should the top participant row display?

We can't keep an empty row.
"Please select a participant" is placeholder text that I included for testing.

cc. @Expensify/design

[dubielzyk-expensify]

I'll let Shawn make the call here, but I'd expect the push row pattern to still be adhered to. As for the label I'm curious if we have any words we use usually, but recipient feels okay to me:

[trjExpensify]

For the top participant row("To" field): when there's no default workspace

Is this more so the case where the user has no workspaces at all. So they're a P2P user basically? Coz' if you have a group workspace, you have a default workspace.

I kinda' think we just don't skip the participant selector step for this case.

We can't keep an empty row.

Can you elaborate as to why? We have empty push inputs as a staple pattern. We would of course need to show a form error if you try to proceed without a participant selected. But I guess let's first confirm with Shawn first if we're intending to skip the participant selector step per the above.

[shawnborton]

I kinda' think we just don't skip the participant selector step for this case.

That feels like a larger change IMO.

I agree with where Jon is going with this but I think we can simplify it even more:

Or default to personal space but allow it to be editable:

[dubielzyk-expensify]

That looks good to me 👍

[ChavdaSachin]

Okay 👍

[trjExpensify]

That feels like a larger change IMO.

Isn't it how it already works today for these cases?

1. No workspaces at all
2. personal policy is set as your default (via Classic) and you're a member of multiple workspaces

So I figured it was less change to just leave that as is.

[trjExpensify]

Confirmed it is:

2026-04-17_15-26-37.mp4

[JmillsExpensify]

That feels like a larger change IMO.

Isn't it how it already works today for these cases?

1. No workspaces at all
2. personal policy is set as your default (via Classic) and you're a member of multiple workspaces

So I figured it was less change to just leave that as is.

I agree. I think this is how it already works. We also lock if down if you have the domain restriction.

[dannymcclain]

Hmm, but if we included the participant selector, wouldn't that be the first/only thing you see under the Manual tab? I thought the point of this was to make this whole thing one screen?

[shawnborton]

Sorry, @trjExpensify what are you proposing exactly?

[trjExpensify]

• The participant selected drives the coding options available beneath on the confirmation screen and stuff.
• In almost all cases we skip the participant selector step because we know which participant to pre-select.
• There are a couple of cases I mentioned above where we don't skip the participant selector step, we force the user to choose it first.
• So let's just keep doing that for those cases so we don't have to figure out a bunch of new logic and what fields can and can't be populated when the "To" is empty and stuff like that.
• Yeah, it does mean that in those two cases when you click Create expense you'll get the "Choose participant" step first. But that's fine IMO, as they aren't optimal cases.

[shawnborton]

Cool, that works for me.

[ChavdaSachin]

Conflicts are so nasty, I basically have to redo at least half my work.

[ChavdaSachin]

• The participant selected drives the coding options available beneath on the confirmation screen and stuff.
• In almost all cases we skip the participant selector step because we know which participant to pre-select.
• There are a couple of cases I mentioned above where we don't skip the participant selector step, we force the user to choose it first.
• So let's just keep doing that for those cases so we don't have to figure out a bunch of new logic and what fields can and can't be populated when the "To" is empty and stuff like that.
• Yeah, it does mean that in those two cases when you click Create expense you'll get the "Choose participant" step first. But that's fine IMO, as they aren't optimal cases.

Considering this comment as the final decision and moving forward with the changes.