Skip to content

Fix report lifecycle when moving expense to new report #90712

Open
neerajbachani wants to merge 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
neerajbachani:test/86637-offline-optimistic-proof
Open

Fix report lifecycle when moving expense to new report #90712
neerajbachani wants to merge 3 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
neerajbachani:test/86637-offline-optimistic-proof

Conversation

@neerajbachani
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@neerajbachani neerajbachani commented May 14, 2026

Explanation of Change

When moving an expense onto a new report (e.g. from a submitted source report), optimistic / merged report data could show Draft instead of preserving the source report’s lifecycle (e.g. Outstanding). This PR passes an explicit originalReport into changeTransactionsReport so the client can apply the source report’s stateNum / statusNum when the destination is an optimistic newly created report, and keeps lifecycle inheritance logic aligned with that flow. Call sites that know the source report (IOU edit/step report flows, search bulk move, new report workspace selection) pass originalReport. After main refactored report selection into useReportSelectionActions, the same originalReport + policyTagList arguments are wired through that hook so behavior stays correct with current main.

Fixed Issues

$ #86637
PROPOSAL: #86637 (comment)

Tests

  1. On an account with a submitted expense report, open an expense on that report and use the flow to move / change report / create new report (same entry points you changed: IOU edit report, step report including global create if applicable, search change report, new report workspace selection where relevant).
  2. Confirm the destination report row / header shows the expected lifecycle (not incorrectly stuck on Draft) immediately after the move, before a full reload, when the destination is a new optimistic report.
  3. Repeat moving to an existing report and confirm no regression (correct report, no console errors).
  4. Smoke-test remove from report / personal-policy path from the report step screen: action completes and no regressions around changeTransactionsReport.
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

  1. Turn offline, perform the same “move expense to new report” flow as in Tests.
  2. Confirm optimistic UI still shows the intended lifecycle state for the new report (not an incorrect Draft state attributable to this path) while offline.
  3. Go back online and confirm the app reconciles without unexpected errors (watch JS console).

QA Steps

  1. Same as Tests and Offline tests on staging: submitted source report → move expense to new report; verify lifecycle display; then existing report; then remove-from-report smoke where applicable.
  2. Confirm no new regressions in Search bulk “change report” if that flow is available on staging with the same policy setup.
  • 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
lv_0_20260517235326.online-video-cutter.com.mp4
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
lv_0_20260518000701.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
lv_0_20260518004150.online-video-cutter.com.mp4

@neerajbachani neerajbachani requested review from a team as code owners May 14, 2026 18:56
@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested review from daledah and trjExpensify and removed request for a team and trjExpensify May 14, 2026 18:56
@melvin-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

melvin-bot Bot commented May 14, 2026

@daledah 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]

const {translate, localeCompare} = useLocalize();
const {shouldUseNarrowLayout} = useResponsiveLayout();
const [allReportNextSteps] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.NEXT_STEP);
const [allReports] = useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT);
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

❌ PERF-11 (docs)

useOnyx(ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT) subscribes to the entire REPORT collection without a selector, causing this component to re-render whenever any report changes. The allReports value is only used inside the createReport callback to look up a single report by ID (allReports?.[\${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT}${originalReportID}`]`). This component already has many Onyx subscriptions; adding an unselected collection subscription amplifies unnecessary re-renders.

Consider using Onyx.getValue or OnyxUtils.getCachedValue inside the callback to read the report on demand rather than subscribing at the component level, or use a selector that narrows to only the needed report if the ID can be determined at the hook level.


Reviewed at: e24e3ab | Please rate this suggestion with 👍 or 👎 to help us improve! Reactions are used to monitor reviewer efficiency.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@neerajbachani what do you think?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I verified the bot concern is valid: NewReportWorkspaceSelectionPage subscribes to full REPORT collection only to fetch one report in createReport. I’ll remove that subscription and switch to an on demand cached lookup via existing getReportOrDraftReport.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented May 14, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ Changes either increased or maintained existing code coverage, great job!

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/libs/actions/Transaction.ts 73.84% <100.00%> (+1.18%) ⬆️
src/pages/NewReportWorkspaceSelectionPage.tsx 95.23% <100.00%> (+12.94%) ⬆️
...rc/pages/Search/SearchTransactionsChangeReport.tsx 67.90% <100.00%> (+67.90%) ⬆️
...rc/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestEditReport.tsx 0.00% <ø> (ø)
...questStepReport/hooks/useReportSelectionActions.ts 73.80% <100.00%> (+15.27%) ⬆️
...c/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepUpgrade.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 479 files with indirect coverage changes

@daledah
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

daledah commented May 15, 2026

@neerajbachani please fix the failing checks

…nsify#86637)

Pass originalReport into changeTransactionsReport for optimistic new reports.
Add tests and avoid full REPORT collection subscription in workspace selection.
@neerajbachani neerajbachani force-pushed the test/86637-offline-optimistic-proof branch from e24e3ab to 98b04fa Compare May 18, 2026 07:16
@neerajbachani
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@daledah All CI checks are passing now, and I’ve added the video demo in the PR media as well.

Core fix (actual product change) - lifecycle inheritance when moving an expense to a new report:

Tests only (Codecov / review feedback) - no additional product behavior:

Happy to adjust anything if you’d like a different test split or more coverage in a specific path.

@daledah
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

daledah commented May 19, 2026

@codex review

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 477377eebf

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".

Comment on lines +1708 to +1709
const shouldInheritLifecycleStateFromSource =
destinationReportID === newReport?.reportID && !!newReport?.pendingFields?.createReport && originalReport?.stateNum !== undefined && originalReport?.statusNum !== undefined;
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Pass the source report through upgrade-created moves

When the search bulk-move flow falls through to the workspace-upgrade path, IOURequestStepUpgrade.tsx still creates an optimistic report at lines 136-148 and calls changeTransactionsReport without originalReport. Because lifecycle inheritance is gated on originalReport here, selected expenses moved from a submitted/approved report via that upgrade path keep the new report's default OPEN lifecycle, while the updated search and workspace-selection paths now inherit correctly. Please derive the single source report in the upgrade path as well (or make this helper infer it from the moved transactions) so all create-and-move entry points get the fix.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@daledah
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

daledah commented May 19, 2026

@neerajbachani could you please check the bot comment above? And request additional backend updates in the issues section.

Derive single source report from selected transactions and forward it to
changeTransactionsReport so lifecycle inheritance applies in IOURequestStepUpgrade.
@neerajbachani
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@daledah checked the bot note , it’s actually valid.
In the upgrade create-and-move path (IOURequestStepUpgrade.tsx), we still call changeTransactionsReport without source lifecycle context so this path can miss the lifecycle inheritance fix

Also, for backend:

  • Backend: ChangeTransactionsReport request schema currently doesn’t carry lifecycle fields (ChangeTransactionsReportParams.ts), so server-side persistence/refetch can still return default lifecycle unless backend is updated.

@daledah
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

daledah commented May 25, 2026

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff.

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".

@daledah
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

daledah commented May 25, 2026

Also, for backend:

@neerajbachani please request in the issue

@neerajbachani
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

aight @daledah #86637 (comment)

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants