Tighten reportActionsList on trackExpense and gate the hook in useExpenseSubmission#93156
Conversation
melvin-bot
Bot
requested review from
joekaufmanexpensify and
parasharrajat
and removed request for
a team
|
@parasharrajat 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] |
DylanDylann
force-pushed
the
refactor-66578-gate-useAllPolicyExpenseChatReportActions
branch
from
6fdf413 to
b261021
Compare
DylanDylann
changed the title
…enseSubmission Closes the audit started in Expensify#66578 for the trackExpense entry point. All callers now explicitly express whether they need the reportActionsList value, and the hook that produces it is gated so non-share submissions stop paying the per-render filter cost. Audit of trackExpense callers (only SHARE consumes reportActionsList): | caller | action value | passes value? | | useExpenseSubmission.ts (IOURequestStepConfirmation) | forwards prop | yes (hook value) | | IOURequestStepAmount.tsx | omitted → default | undefined | | IOURequestStepDistance/handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation.ts | omitted → default | undefined | | MoneyRequest.ts (createTransaction) | omitted → default | undefined | | Duplicate.ts (duplicateExpenseTransaction) | omitted → default | undefined | | Share/SubmitDetailsPage.tsx | TYPE.CREATE → default | undefined | Changes: - CreateTrackExpenseParams.reportActionsList is now required (T | undefined) with a JSDoc explaining when to pass a real value vs undefined. - Documented the same rule on trackExpense() itself. - 5 non-SHARE callers now pass `reportActionsList: undefined` explicitly. - useAllPolicyExpenseChatReportActions accepts an `enabled` flag (defaults to true); useExpenseSubmission passes `isSharingTrackExpense` so the filter loop is skipped on every non-share submission flow. - Updated test call sites in TrackExpenseTest, RequestMoneyTest, TransactionTest, UnreadIndicatorsTest, GoogleTagManagerTest to satisfy the tightened type. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
DylanDylann
force-pushed
the
refactor-66578-gate-useAllPolicyExpenseChatReportActions
branch
from
b261021 to
e36d936
Compare
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 8d56636520
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".
|
No product review needed |
|
I will get this tomorrow. is this the last PR of the series? |
|
Yes, this is the last PR |
|
@parasharrajat Kindly bump |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 Issuessection 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
Testssection - I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the
QA stepssection - 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 verified the steps for local testing are in the
- 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.
toggleReportand notonIconClick). - 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 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 that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
- 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 usingAvatarhave been tested & I retested again) - 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
thisproperly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}the methodthis.submitshould be bound tothisin the constructor) - Any internal methods bound to
thisare necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);ifthis.submitis never passed to a component event handler likeonClick) - 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
Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris 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
Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso the design team can review the changes.
- 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
mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps. - I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.
20.06.2026_20.18.55_REC.mp4
🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed
|
@parasharrajat, the reviewer checklist seems to be missing something |
|
@Gonals Fixed. |
|
@Gonals Kindly bump |
|
@Gonals Are we ready to merge? |
|
🚧 Gonals has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here. |
|
✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release. |
|
🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
|
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Gonals in version: 9.4.29-0 🚀
|
|
🤖 No help site changes required. I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site content under This is a purely internal, performance-only refactor with no user-facing impact:
There are no changes to UI, copy, feature names, tabs, settings labels, buttons, pricing, workspace behavior, or any documented user flow. The PR itself notes "perf-only refactor, no UI changes." Because nothing customer-facing changed, no draft help site PR was created. |
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Gonals in version: 9.4.31-0 🚀
|
Help site review — no changes requiredI reviewed the changes in this PR against Expensify's help site content under Why: This is a pure internal performance/refactor change. It threads
There are no changes to user-facing features, copy, tabs, settings labels, buttons, or product flows (the PR description confirms: "perf-only refactor, no UI changes"). The end-user behavior of tracking/creating an expense is unchanged, so no existing help article becomes inaccurate. Since no changes are required, I did not create a draft docs PR. @DylanDylann, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR (Note: no help site PR was created because this refactor has no user-facing impact — nothing in |
|
🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.31-0 🚀
Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry): |
6 participants
Explanation of Change
Fixed Issues
$ #66578
PROPOSAL:
Tests
Offline tests
N/A — perf-only refactor; offline behavior unchanged.
QA Steps
PR Author Checklist
### Fixed Issuessection aboveTestssectionOffline stepssectionQA stepssectiontoggleReportand notonIconClick)src/languages/*files and using the translation methodSTYLE.md) were followedAvatar, I verified the components usingAvatarare working as expected)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))npm run compress-svg)Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases)Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso the design team can review the changes.ScrollViewcomponent to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps.Screenshots/Videos
Screen.Recording.2026-06-10.at.15.50.16.mov
N/A — perf-only refactor, no UI changes.