Skip to content

Fix empty expense preview after reverse-split offline delete#88021

Open
MelvinBot wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
claude-reverseSplitEmptyPreview
Open

Fix empty expense preview after reverse-split offline delete#88021
MelvinBot wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
claude-reverseSplitEmptyPreview

Conversation

@MelvinBot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@MelvinBot MelvinBot commented Apr 16, 2026

Explanation of Change

When deleting one of two split expense children while offline (triggering a reverse-split via REVERT_SPLIT_TRANSACTION), the expense preview rendered empty after going back online.

Three issues in the reverse-split path of updateSplitTransactions in Split.ts:

  1. existingTransaction was set to undefined — This caused getMoneyRequestInformation to skip fastMerge with the original transaction data, so the restored transaction lost all fields from the pre-split original.

  2. currentReportActionID was undefined — This created a duplicate IOU action instead of reusing the existing firstIOU, leaving two IOU actions for the same originalTransactionID after the server responded.

  3. No failure data existed to restore the original transaction to its pre-split state (with reportID: SPLIT_REPORT_ID) or restore firstIOU on API failure. Compare to the non-reverse-split path which properly handles both.

Fixed Issues

$ #87065

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review"

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

  1. Create a $100 expense
  2. Split the expense into $60 and $40 expenses
  3. Go offline
  4. Open the $40 split expense and delete it
  5. Go online
  6. Navigate to workspace chat
  7. Verify expense preview shows the restored single expense (not empty)

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".

  • 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

@MelvinBot @truph01
Fix empty expense preview after reverse-split offline delete
c2f3113 
When deleting one of two split expense children while offline (triggering
a reverse-split), the expense preview rendered empty after going back online.

Three issues in the reverse-split path of updateSplitTransactions:

1. existingTransaction was set to undefined, causing getMoneyRequestInformation
   to skip fastMerge with the original transaction data.

2. currentReportActionID was undefined, creating a duplicate IOU action instead
   of reusing the existing firstIOU.

3. No failure data existed to restore the original transaction or firstIOU
   on API failure.

Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>
@MelvinBot MelvinBot requested a review from a team April 16, 2026 03:03
@MelvinBot MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Apr 16, 2026
Open
7 tasks
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Apr 16, 2026 •
edited by github-actions bot
Loading

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/actions/IOU/Split.ts 80.35% <50.00%> (-0.15%) ⬇️
... and 14 files with indirect coverage changes

@truph01
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

truph01 commented Apr 16, 2026

@MelvinBot Please make sure you implemented all the fixes mentioned here:

Add failure data in the reverse-split path to fully restore the original transaction (matching the pattern at Split.ts:1924-1928)
Add success data to clear pendingAction on the firstIOU report action (matching IOU/index.ts:8761-8769)
Ensure childMoneyRequestCount is included in the report preview failure data at Split.ts:1234-1245

@MelvinBot @truph01
Add missing success data and childMoneyRequestCount for reverse-split…
2c19c2d 
… path

Add success data to clear pendingAction on the firstIOU report action
after API success in the reverse-split path, matching the pattern used
in DeleteMoneyRequest.ts. Also include childMoneyRequestCount in the
report preview failure data so it gets restored on API failure.

Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>
@MelvinBot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented Apr 16, 2026

Reviewed the three fixes from the proposal and found two were missing. Pushed a fix (2c19c2d):

Fix Status before Status now
Failure data to restore original transaction in reverse-split path ✅ Already implemented ✅
Success data to clear pendingAction on firstIOU report action ❌ Missing ✅ Added
childMoneyRequestCount in report preview failure data ❌ Missing ✅ Added

What was added:

  1. Success data in the reverse-split else branch that clears pendingAction: null on firstIOU after API success — matching the pattern in DeleteMoneyRequest.ts:315-322.
  2. childMoneyRequestCount to the failure data in pushUpdatedReportPreviewActionToOnyxData so it gets restored on API failure — matching how DeleteMoneyRequest.ts:226-227 tracks this field.

truph01
truph01 reviewed Apr 16, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread src/libs/actions/IOU/Split.ts Outdated
newNonReimbursableTotal: (transactionReport?.nonReimbursableTotal ?? 0) - changesInReportTotal,
isSplitExpense: true,
currentReportActionID: !isReverseSplitOperation ? currentReportAction?.reportActionID : undefined,
currentReportActionID: !isReverseSplitOperation ? currentReportAction?.reportActionID : firstIOU?.reportActionID,
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@truph01 truph01 Apr 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@MelvinBot, Why do we need this change? It caused an BE error when calling RevertSplitTransaction

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@MelvinBot MelvinBot Apr 16, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're right — reverted in 038924c.

The intent was to fix the "duplicate IOU action" described in the proposal (passing undefined causes getMoneyRequestInformation to generate a fresh reportActionID via rand64() at ReportUtils.ts:7224, creating a new IOU action instead of reusing firstIOU). But passing firstIOU?.reportActionID causes that ID to flow through to splitReportActionID (at Split.ts:1502) and get sent to the RevertSplitTransaction backend API, which doesn't expect an already-existing action ID.

Reverted back to undefined. The duplicate IOU action issue from the proposal likely needs a server-side fix or a different client-side approach (e.g., cleaning up the duplicate in success/failure data rather than preventing its creation).

@MelvinBot @truph01
Revert currentReportActionID change for reverse-split operations
038924c 
The reverse-split path must pass undefined as currentReportActionID so
getMoneyRequestInformation generates a new reportActionID via rand64().
Passing firstIOU.reportActionID caused the optimistic IOU action to
reuse the existing action's ID, which was then sent as
splitReportActionID to the RevertSplitTransaction backend API, causing
an error.

Co-authored-by: truph01 <truph01@users.noreply.github.com>
@truph01
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

truph01 commented Apr 16, 2026

@MelvinBot Mark this PR as ready for review

@MelvinBot MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review April 16, 2026 06:36
@MelvinBot MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner April 16, 2026 06:36
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from heyjennahay and truph01 April 16, 2026 06:36
@melvin-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 16, 2026

@truph01 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]

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot removed request for a team April 16, 2026 06:36
@MelvinBot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

MelvinBot commented Apr 16, 2026

Done — this PR is now marked as ready for review. 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@truph01 truph01 Awaiting requested review from truph01

@heyjennahay heyjennahay Awaiting requested review from heyjennahay

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@truph01 truph01

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@MelvinBot @truph01