Fix stale duplicate violation persisting after editing transaction amount offline

[fedirjh]

Explanation of Change

After Auth#17336 introduced bidirectional duplicate violations, a command ordering issue causes stale one-sided violations to persist in the UI.

Root cause: When transitioning from offline to online, OpenReport resolves first and writes bidirectional duplicate violations for both transactions A and B. Then UpdateMoneyRequestAmountAndCurrency resolves — its optimistic cleanup correctly removes A's duplicate reference from B, but the server response only carries A's updated violations. Because successData previously did not re-apply the partner cleanup, stale OpenReport data for B overwrites the optimistic cleanup.

Fix: removeTransactionFromDuplicateTransactionViolation now pushes the same cleaned partner violations into onyxData.successData in addition to optimisticData. This ensures the cleanup is re-applied after the server response, preventing queued commands like OpenReport from re-introducing one-sided duplicate violations. The successData type in getUpdateMoneyRequestParams is widened to accept TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS keys.

Changes:

• src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts — push cleaned partner violations into successData alongside optimisticData
• src/libs/actions/IOU/UpdateMoneyRequest.ts — widen successData type union to include TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS
• tests/unit/TransactionTest.ts — add 5 unit tests verifying successData behavior (re-application, optimistic/success parity, null on last removal, failure rollback, undefined guard)

Fixed Issues

$ #67116
PROPOSAL:

Tests

1. Open any workspace chat.
2. Create a manual expense.
3. Create a new report.
4. Tap on "Add Expense" on the just created report and create an expense similar to the previous one.
5. Go Offline
6. Open the first created expense.
7. Tap on the "Amount" field and edit the amount.
8. Go Online
9. Verify no "Potential duplicate" error appears on the expense that wasn´t edited.
10. Navigate to "Inbox"
11. Verify no RBR is displayed on workspace chat.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

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

• 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

CleanShot.2026-04-20.at.02.02.43.mp4

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

[melvin-bot]

@thelullabyy 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: 3cea558d60

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

To use Codex here, create a Codex account and connect to github.

[aimane-chnaif]

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
  • MacOS: Desktop
• 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 there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
• 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.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

ios.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

msafari.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

web.different.reports.mov

web.one.report.mov

[aimane-chnaif]

job 1 failing

[MelvinBot]

PR Review

Approach: The display-time bidirectional filter (shouldShowDuplicateViolation) is a clean solution — filtering stale one-sided violations at render time avoids race conditions from reactive Onyx cleanup. The logic, test coverage, and call-site wiring are solid overall.

Failing CI test

getTransactionThreadPrimaryAction › should return REVIEW DUPLICATES when there are duplicated transactions fails because getTransactionThreadPrimaryAction (line 583-585 of ReportPrimaryActionUtils.ts) builds a transactionViolations collection containing only the current transaction's violations:

const transactionViolations: OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]> = {
    [`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS}${reportTransaction.transactionID}`]: violations,
};

The bidirectional check in shouldShowDuplicateViolation then looks up the partner transaction's violations in this single-entry collection and finds nothing — so isDuplicate always returns false when called through this path.

Fix options:

1. Change getTransactionThreadPrimaryAction to accept the full allTransactionViolations collection (consistent with how isDuplicate is updated everywhere else in this PR), or
2. Have the test also merge the partner's violations into Onyx so the collection is available — but this only fixes the test, not the production code path, which has the same problem

Option 1 is the correct fix.

Performance consideration

useTransactionViolations now subscribes to the entire ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS collection. The comment at line 13-15 acknowledges this is intentional and explains why a selector doesn't work. This is worth flagging to reviewers:

• Every violation update on any transaction will trigger a re-render of every component using this hook.
• On high-traffic accounts with many transactions, this could cause noticeable re-render churn.

The same full-collection subscription is added in MoneyRequestHeader.tsx. Consider whether a targeted lookup (subscribe only to the specific partner transaction IDs from the violation's data.duplicates) could achieve the same result without the broad subscription.

Minor observations

• In hasViolation (line 1998-2007), when transactionViolations is passed as an array (not a collection), allViolations is undefined and the shouldShowDuplicateViolation check is skipped. This is fine for backward compat but means array callers won't get the bidirectional filter — verify no array caller can surface stale duplicates.

[aimane-chnaif]

I think we should still consider backend fix.
Duplicate violation still happening on search:

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f6bb7e71e5

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".

[fedirjh]

@aimane-chnaif Hey! I've revised the approach based on the perfomance feedback. Here's what changed:

Previous approach (reverted): Display-time bidirectional filter (shouldShowDuplicateViolation) wired into every violation display path.

New approach (successData): The root cause is that when UpdateMoneyRequestAmountAndCurrency resolves, a previously queued OpenReport command can overwrite the optimistic partner cleanup with stale one-sided duplicate violations. The fix is straightforward — removeTransactionFromDuplicateTransactionViolation now pushes the same cleaned partner violations into onyxData.successData alongside optimisticData. This ensures the cleanup is re-applied after the server response, so stale data from OpenReport doesn't persist.

Changes are minimal (3 files):

• TransactionUtils/index.ts — push cleaned violations into successData
• UpdateMoneyRequest.ts — widen successData type to accept TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS
• TransactionTest.ts — 5 new unit tests covering the successData behavior

The PR description has been updated to reflect this. Ready for re-review when you get a chance!

[MelvinBot]

PR Review

Approach is sound. Pushing the same cleaned partner violations into successData alongside optimisticData is the right fix — it ensures the cleanup survives when a queued OpenReport response overwrites the optimistic state.

All CI checks pass.

Code correctness

• onyxData.successData?.push(...) uses optional chaining consistent with the existing optimisticData and failureData patterns — safe when successData is undefined.
• getUpdateMoneyRequestParams initializes successData as [] before removeTransactionFromDuplicateTransactionViolation is called, so the push always executes in the update path.
• The other caller (DeleteMoneyRequest.ts:695) intentionally omits successData from the passed object — the optional chaining silently skips, which is correct for deletes where the transaction is being removed entirely.
• The type widening in UpdateMoneyRequest.ts to include TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS in the successData union is the minimal change needed.

Tests

5 new tests cover the key scenarios well: re-application, optimistic/success parity, null on last removal, failure rollback, and the undefined guard. The UpdateMoneyRequestDataKeys type is properly exported and imported.

One note

The reviewer comment about the search page still showing duplicate violations (aimane-chnaif's comment, now marked outdated) — this successData fix only covers the UpdateMoneyRequestAmountAndCurrency command flow. If the search page fetches violations through a different path (e.g., a separate SearchForReports response that carries its own violation data), the stale duplicate could reappear there independently. Worth confirming whether the search page re-renders from the same Onyx key that this fix targets, or if it uses a separate server response.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 60806933bb

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: Didn't find any major issues. Bravo.

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".

[mountiny]

Thank you!

[github-actions]

🚧 @mountiny 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 #88298.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-714ec83-512c718-b94f8d37335cd08773c2e587a444ef264a8f6dad/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-714ec83-512c718-268316e6b583b8cd7a5a24c3049856ddacfdca12/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://88298.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.3.62-5 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS

[MelvinBot]

No help site changes are required for this PR.

The changes are an internal bug fix for a race condition in Onyx data synchronization (optimisticData/successData handling) that caused stale "potential duplicate" violations to persist after editing a transaction amount offline. No user-facing features, settings, workflows, or UI labels were added or changed.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.3.64-0 🚀

platform	result
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android
• iOS