Skip to content

Fix false RBR on settled splits#91541

Merged
mollfpr merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
mollfpr-fix-split-expense-show-rbr
May 26, 2026
Merged

Fix false RBR on settled splits#91541
mollfpr merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
mollfpr-fix-split-expense-show-rbr

Conversation

@mollfpr
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mollfpr mollfpr commented May 24, 2026

Explanation of Change

The ?? {} defeated the transaction && guard in hasMissingSmartscanFields, {} is truthy, so isCreatedMissing return true and fired a false-positive RBR whenever the split parent transaction wasn't loaded by OpenApp.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/635465
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Prerequisites:
Two accounts:

  • Account A — the split creator
  • Account B — the recipient
  1. Logged in as account A
  2. Create a new chat with account B
  3. Click on the "+" sign in the input and select "Split expense"
  4. Select the manual expense and put any amount and complete the flow
  5. Submit the expense
  6. Logged in as account B
  7. Go to the account A chat report
  8. Mark as paid the submitted expense
  9. Logged in as account A
  10. Go to SettingsTroubleshootClear cache
  11. Back to the Inbox page
  12. Verify no RBR is shown in the LHN on the account B chat
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Prerequisites:
Two accounts:

  • Account A — the split creator
  • Account B — the recipient
  1. Create a split between A and B
  2. Logged in as account B
  3. Settle the IOU
  4. Logged in as account A
  5. Go to Settings → Troubleshoot → Clear cache. Wait for reconnect.
  6. Back to LHN
  7. Verify no RBR is show in the LHN on the account B chat
  • 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
    • 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Before

before.rbr.fix.mp4

After

after.rbr.fix.mp4

The `?? {}` defeated the `transaction &&` guard in hasMissingSmartscanFields, {} is truthy, so isCreatedMissing return true and fired a false-positive RBR whenever the split parent transaction wasn't loaded by OpenApp.
@mollfpr mollfpr marked this pull request as ready for review May 25, 2026 03:01
@mollfpr mollfpr requested review from a team as code owners May 25, 2026 03:01
@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested review from NicolasBonet and heyjennahay and removed request for a team May 25, 2026 03:01
@melvin-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

melvin-bot Bot commented May 25, 2026

@NicolasBonet 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]

@NicolasBonet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mollfpr I am still getting familiar with the product, so those tests steps are too simple, i have no idea how to create a split across two members, let's detail them please

@mollfpr
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mollfpr commented May 25, 2026

@NicolasBonet No worries! I have updated the test step. Happy to help walk through the test step!

@NicolasBonet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@NicolasBonet No worries! I have updated the test step. Happy to help walk through the test step!

Thank you, but I was trying to reproduce this and in Account A i wasn't able to find the chat, it exists as I can view it if I directly visit the URL, but I cannot see it in the inbox list:

Screen.Recording.2026-05-25.at.9.29.24.AM.mov

@NicolasBonet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

nvm I just saw the focus mode thing!

@NicolasBonet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

NicolasBonet commented May 25, 2026

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
  • 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 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

MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2026-05-25.at.9.35.45.AM.mov

@NicolasBonet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful!

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".

@mollfpr
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

mollfpr commented May 26, 2026

I'll go ahead to merge this, nothing has changed in the product 🙌

@mollfpr mollfpr merged commit e02ed38 into main May 26, 2026
54 checks passed
@mollfpr mollfpr deleted the mollfpr-fix-split-expense-show-rbr branch May 26, 2026 06:17
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚧 @mollfpr has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mollfpr in version: 9.3.83-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

@MelvinBot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I reviewed the changes in this PR. The fix removes a ?? {} fallback in ReportUtils.ts that was causing a false-positive RBR (Red Brick Road) indicator on settled split expenses when the parent transaction wasn't yet loaded. This is a purely internal bug fix — it doesn't change any user-facing features, workflows, settings, or UI copy.

No help site documentation changes are required.

@mollfpr, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review

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.

4 participants