Add received payment action to first More menu section by MelvinBot · Pull Request #92477 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-06-03T06:51:06Z

Explanation of Change

The report More menu uses section-based ordering defined in src/libs/PopoverMenuSections.ts. The RECEIVED_PAYMENT ('receivedPayment') action was missing from REPORT_MORE_MENU_SECTIONS, so when it was added as a menu item it didn't match any section and fell through to the UNRECOGNIZED_SECTION bucket (Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER), sorting it to the very end of the menu.

This adds REPORT_SECONDARY_ACTIONS.RECEIVED_PAYMENT to the first section alongside PAY, so the Received payment button appears in the first section as expected. A regression unit test was also added to verify the action stays in the first section.

Fixed Issues

$ #91928
PROPOSAL: #91928 (comment)

Tests

Precondition:

Disable Approvals and Payments in Workflows settings.
Change Submission frequency to Instantly.
Invite a member to the workspace.

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace chat.
Create an expense.
Open the report.
Click More menu.
Verify that the Received payment menu option is at the first section.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

The report More menu ordering is rendered client-side, so the Received payment option appears in the first section regardless of network connectivity. Follow the same steps as the Tests section while offline.

QA Steps

Precondition:

Disable Approvals and Payments in Workflows settings.
Change Submission frequency to Instantly.
Invite a member to the workspace.

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace chat.
Create an expense.
Open the report.
Click More menu.
Verify that the Received payment menu option is at the first section.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

RECEIVED_PAYMENT was missing from REPORT_MORE_MENU_SECTIONS so it fell through to the unrecognized bucket and sorted to the very end of the report More menu. Place it in the first section alongside PAY so it appears where users expect. Co-authored-by: Roji Philip <rojiphil@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-06-03T07:02:03Z

I analyzed the failing checks. Neither requires a code change — the PR diff is correct as-is.

`test (job 7)` — flaky timeout, not caused by this PR

The failure is in tests/ui/UnreadIndicatorsTest.tsx (Display bold in the LHN for unread chat...), which is not part of this PR's diff. The only changed files are PopoverMenuSections.ts and its unit test — they affect More-menu action ordering, which has nothing to do with LHN unread indicators.

The test failed with Exceeded timeout of 120000 ms (the CI shard ran 234s total). I ran it locally on this exact branch and it passes in 17s:

PASS tests/ui/UnreadIndicatorsTest.tsx (17.348 s)
Tests: 2 skipped, 10 passed, 12 total

This is a CI infrastructure timeout flake. Per policy I don't push code for unrelated/flaky failures. Re-running test (job 7) should clear it.

For confidence, everything related to the change is green: typecheck passes, all lint/static checks pass, test shards 1–6 and 8 pass, and both directly-relevant unit tests pass locally — PopoverMenuSectionsTest (7/7) and ReportSecondaryActionUtilsTest (138/138).

`checklist` — PR Author Checklist (expected)

This is the human-only PR Author Checklist, failing only because the boxes aren't ticked — expected for a draft. The co-author should fill out the Tests/QA sections and check the boxes before marking the PR ready for review.

MelvinBot · 2026-06-03T07:07:56Z

I analyzed the two failing checks. Neither requires a code change — the PR diff is correct as-is.

`test (job 7)` — flaky timeout, not caused by this PR

The failure is a single test in tests/ui/UnreadIndicatorsTest.tsx that Exceeded timeout of 120000 ms. That file is not part of this PR's diff — the only changed files are PopoverMenuSections.ts and its unit test, which concern the "More" menu and have nothing to do with LHN unread indicators.

I ran the suite locally on this exact branch and it passes:

PASS tests/ui/UnreadIndicatorsTest.tsx (118.947 s)
  Unread Indicators
    ✓ Display bold in the LHN for unread chat and new line indicator above the chat message when we navigate to it (36053 ms)
    ... (10 passed, 2 skipped)
Tests: 2 skipped, 10 passed, 12 total

The whole suite runs in ~119s — right at the 120s per-test timeout. On slower CI infrastructure the first (heaviest) test tips just over the limit. This is a flaky timeout, not a regression from this PR. Per policy I don't push code for unrelated/flaky failures. Re-running test (job 7) should clear it.

`checklist` — PR Author Checklist (expected)

This is the human-only PR Author Checklist, failing only because the boxes aren't ticked, which is expected for a draft. The co-author should fill out the Tests/QA sections and check the boxes before marking the PR ready for review.

rojiphil · 2026-06-03T08:27:32Z

@MelvinBot
a) Please add the following test steps in OP

Precondition:
Disable Approvals and Payments in Workflows settings.
Change Submission frequency to Instantly.
Invite a member to the workspace.

Test Steps:

Go to staging.new.expensify.com
Go to workspace chat.
Create an expense.
Open the report.
Click More menu.
Verify that the Received payment menu option is at the first section.

b) Also, please tick all the checkboxes in PR author checklist. I will add the test videos in PR reviewer checklist.

MelvinBot · 2026-06-03T08:30:02Z

🤖 Done, rojiphil:

a) Added your test steps to the OP — included the precondition and the 6 steps in both the Tests and QA Steps sections (plus a short note in Offline tests since the More menu ordering is rendered client-side).

b) Ticked all checkboxes in the PR Author Checklist.

The PR Reviewer Checklist is untouched, so you can add the test videos there.

rojiphil · 2026-06-03T08:58:52Z

@MelvinBot Please mark the PR as "Ready for review"

MelvinBot · 2026-06-03T09:00:31Z

🤖 Done — marked this PR as Ready for review.

melvin-bot · 2026-06-03T09:00:35Z

@rojiphil 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]

rojiphil · 2026-06-03T09:05:01Z

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 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

92477-android-hybrid-001.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

92477-mweb-chrome-001.mp4

iOS: HybridApp

92477-ios-hybrid-001.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

92477-mweb-safari-001.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

92477-web-chrome-001.mp4

rojiphil

@Julesssss @flaviadefaria Changes LGTM.
Approving for your review. Thanks.

codecov · 2026-06-04T01:16:39Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/PopoverMenuSections.ts	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

flaviadefaria · 2026-06-04T16:26:15Z

Thanks, @rojiphil! I think having two dividers with only three standalone options feels a bit awkward. I’d suggest grouping Duplicate Expense and Duplicate Report into the same section, since they’re both secondary actions in this use case.

rojiphil · 2026-06-05T02:16:38Z

@flaviadefaria We ended up in this scenario because these were the only standalone options in their assigned sections i.e. Section 1: Most Expected and important action(s), Section 2: Expense Actions, Section 3: Report Actions as mentioned under Reports with a single expense in #87964 (comment).

I agree that it's a bit awkward, but it looks like it was intentionally kept in separate sections (Duplicate Expense is an expense action and Duplicate Report is a report action). It may be better to keep them separate to maintain logical grouping. What do you think?

MelvinBot assigned rojiphil Jun 3, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team June 3, 2026 06:51

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2026

[$250] Expense - Received payment button is moved to the last section in More menu #91928

Open

7 tasks

MelvinBot marked this pull request as ready for review June 3, 2026 09:00

MelvinBot requested a review from a team as a code owner June 3, 2026 09:00

melvin-bot Bot requested review from flaviadefaria and rojiphil and removed request for a team and flaviadefaria June 3, 2026 09:00

rojiphil approved these changes Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from Julesssss June 3, 2026 09:07

flaviadefaria self-requested a review June 4, 2026 16:26

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add received payment action to first More menu section#92477

Add received payment action to first More menu section#92477
MelvinBot wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude-receivedPaymentMoreMenuSection

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

rojiphil left a comment

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 4, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

flaviadefaria commented Jun 4, 2026

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

test (job 7) — flaky timeout, not caused by this PR

checklist — PR Author Checklist (expected)

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

test (job 7) — flaky timeout, not caused by this PR

checklist — PR Author Checklist (expected)

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jun 3, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

rojiphil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 4, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

flaviadefaria commented Jun 4, 2026

Uh oh!

rojiphil commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

MelvinBot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

`test (job 7)` — flaky timeout, not caused by this PR

`checklist` — PR Author Checklist (expected)

`test (job 7)` — flaky timeout, not caused by this PR

`checklist` — PR Author Checklist (expected)

codecov Bot commented Jun 4, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading