Fix stale expense report totals after offline mixed-currency moves

[nabi-ebrahimi]

Explanation of Change

These changes improve how report totals behave when expenses are moved out of a report.

Previously, if the last expense was moved from a report, the old report could keep showing stale or incorrect totals, especially when currency handling was involved. Now, when all expenses are moved out, the old report total, non-reimbursable total, and unheld non-reimbursable total are reset to 0.

Fixed Issues

$ #75091
PROPOSAL: #75091 (Comment)

Tests

Flow 1

1. Go to a workspace chat
2. Create 2 expenses with the same currency
3. Click Submit
4. Go to Spend > Reports
5. Go offline
6. Select the expense report via the checkbox
7. Click Move expenses > Create report
8. Verify that the previous report remains visible
9. Verify that the previous report shows amount 0.00
10. Verify that the previous report shows the View button

Flow 2

1. Go to a workspace chat
2. Create 2 expenses with different currencies
3. Click Submit
4. Go to Spend > Reports
5. Go offline
6. Select the expense report via the checkbox
7. Click Move expenses > Create report
8. Verify that the previous report remains visible
9. Verify that the previous report shows amount 0.00
10. Verify that the previous report shows the View button
11. Verify that the new report appears in a pending/greyed-out state while offline

Flow 3

1. Go to a workspace chat
2. Create 2 expenses in the same report
3. Click Submit
4. Go to Spend > Reports
5. Go offline
6. Open the expense report and select only 1 expense
7. Click Move expenses > Create report
8. Go back to Spend > Reports
9. Verify that the previous report does not reset to 0.00
10. Verify that the previous report total reflects the remaining expense

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as test.

QA Steps

Same as test.

// 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

Screen.Recording.2026-05-05.at.7.34.14.PM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2026-05-05.at.7.31.05.PM.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-05-05.at.7.00.34.PM.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-05-05.at.7.04.48.PM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-05-05.at.6.09.58.PM.mov

[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/actions/Transaction.ts	71.35% <81.48%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
... and 25 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@sobitneupane 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: 1229798aef

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".

[trjExpensify]

It makes sense, but shouldn't we also be kicking that$0 processing report back to open when it's empty? CC: @luacmartins

[luacmartins]

@trjExpensify it doesn't seem like we do that in OD, so that'd be inconsistent here. Up to changing that if you think we should, just noting the different behavior.

[trjExpensify]

I think Classic does something weird like hide $0 processing reports from view for some viewers, which is just masking the problem. So I think we should reopen in this case 👍

[nabi-ebrahimi]

Hi @sobitneupane,

I checked the synced Search response, and it looks like reopening the old empty expense report will require a backend change as well.

While offline, the frontend can optimistically show the emptied source report as Draft. But after reconnecting, the backend returns that old report with total: 0, transactionCount: 0, stateNum: 1, and statusNum: 1, so it becomes Outstanding again.

I attached the screenshot below for reference. So if we want the old report to remain reopened after sync, I think backend support will be needed.

[nabi-ebrahimi]

@sobitneupane, friendly bump. thanks.

[sobitneupane]

I agree with @nabi-ebrahimi's analysis. It seems this will require backend changes as well. @trjExpensify Should we involve someone from backend team to handle this on the backend.

[nabi-ebrahimi]

@trjExpensify, could you please check this comment, when you get a chance. thanks.

[trjExpensify]

@trjExpensify Should we involve someone from backend team to handle this on the backend.

Yeah, and that should come first probably. @luacmartins is in this thread, what do you think Carlos?

[iwiznia]

@trjExpensify what problem is solving putting the report back in open state exactly? I think we should leave it processing.

[trjExpensify]

For managers, their list of reports being polluted up with reports "waiting on you to approve" nothing.

For admins, when they export to CSV all outstanding reports for the month, downloads include $0 reports unless explicitly deselected which seeds doubt over something being incorrect/broken, or then having to manually remove those lines ahead of importing into whatever other system that probably needs an accompanying amount to process reimbursements.

Maybe some logic on the prevention of removing managers with outstanding $0 processing reports to approve?

.. I just don't see why a $0 processing should remain, do you? If they've moved all of the expenses out of the report, that report is effectively a draft again because there's nothing on it - so the employee can decide if they need to add different expenses to it and re-submit it, or delete it if it's no longer required.

[JmillsExpensify]

I agree with Tom that those are real problems and not a great customer experience. I don't feel strongly on which solution we go with, but I do think we have to do something.

[iwiznia]

Hmmm I see, if we go down that route, why would we even keep the report at all? Wouldn't it be better to delete it? Or do we want to keep it to conserve the conversation/history there?

[trjExpensify]

Yeah, convo/history and the employee might want to add different expenses to it. I don't think it matters, once it's a draft again - it's on them to do with it what they need to next.

[nabi-ebrahimi]

@sobitneupane, What's next here? Thanks.

[nabi-ebrahimi]

@sobitneupane, gentle bump. thanks.

[sobitneupane]

@nabi-ebrahimi If we decide to reopen the emptied report, we will likely need support from backend team. Let's wait for the decision before proceeding.

cc: @iwiznia @trjExpensify

[trjExpensify]

I think we decided on that, yes.

[iwiznia]

Sorry for the delay, submitted backend PR here https://github.com/Expensify/Auth/pull/21888
We:

• Put the report back to draft
• Add a retracted report action