Fix duplicate Expensify Card transactions on draft reports by KioCoan · Pull Request #93646 · Expensify/App

KioCoan · 2026-06-16T00:12:50Z

Explanation of Change

When an Expensify Card authorization settles, the backend creates a separate posted/clearing transaction (carrying parentTransactionID = the root pending auth's transactionID), moves the original pending auth to the hidden report (reportID = -4), and sends a real-time Onyx MERGE_COLLECTION null to clear the pending from clients.

The problem is on a fresh load: the report-transaction query only returns reportID > 0, so a hidden pending is simply absent from the OpenReport response (never sent as a null), and OpenReport writes transactions additively via MERGE_COLLECTION and never reconciles stale rows. So a client that was offline or closed when the card settled (the common case, since cards settle 1-3 days later) misses the real-time null and keeps the stale pending in local Onyx with its old draft reportID, rendering it as a duplicate beside the posted row. Expensify Classic has no persistent client store, so it always reflects the current DB state, which is why it is unaffected.

This PR adds a value-based deduplication at the single report-scoped aggregation chokepoint (getAllNonDeletedTransactions). When a posted Expensify Card transaction is present, any pending card auth on the same chain (matched by parentTransactionID / transactionID) is filtered out before render. The guard is conservative: it only ever hides a pending row when a posted sibling from the same chain exists. Genuinely pending rows with no posted counterpart, non-card transactions, and splits are all left untouched. Totals are unaffected because the header reads the server-authoritative report.total, not a client sum of the list.

A backend follow-up (Auth) will purge the stale pending at the source on OpenReport; this client-side fix is what closes the deploy blocker because it also covers offline/stale clients that never re-fetch.

Fixed Issues

#93321

Tests

Open a report that contains an Expensify Card expense that has a pending auth and its posted/clearing transaction on the same chain (or inject the pair via Onyx: a Pending card row with the draft reportID, plus a Posted card row whose parentTransactionID is the pending's transactionID).
Verify only the single posted transaction renders in the report transaction list (no duplicate row).
Verify the report header total is unchanged from before the fix.
Open a report with a genuinely pending Expensify Card expense that has NOT settled (no posted sibling). Verify the pending row still shows.
Open a report with two unrelated pending card expenses. Verify both still show.
Open a report with a split expense and a cash/manual expense. Verify nothing is hidden or altered.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

While online, load a report with an Expensify Card pending + posted pair on the same chain. Verify only the posted row shows.
Go offline and reload/navigate back to the report. Verify the list is still duplicated (the duplication is a data condition, not gated on connectivity) and no duplicate reappears.

QA Steps

The duplicate is a client-side data condition (a stale pending row that survives in local Onyx after the card settled), so the most reliable way to reproduce it on staging is to inject the transactions via Onyx. Open any report on staging, open the JS console, and set reportID to the open report's ID:

const reportID = '<PASTE_REPORT_ID>';
const base = {reportID, bank: 'Expensify Card', amount: -1234, currency: 'USD', created: '2026-06-25'};

Inject a pending auth and its posted clearing on the same chain (run line 1, confirm the pending row appears, then run line 2):

Onyx.merge(`transactions_dedupPending1`, {...base, transactionID: 'dedupPending1', status: 'Pending', parentTransactionID: '',              merchant: 'Pending auth'});
Onyx.merge(`transactions_dedupPosted1`,  {...base, transactionID: 'dedupPosted1',  status: 'Posted',  parentTransactionID: 'dedupPending1', merchant: 'Posted clearing'});

Verify only one row appears for that card expense (the posted Posted clearing row), not two.
Verify the report header total matches the expected amount and did not change.

Inject a genuinely pending auth with no posted sibling and verify it stays visible:

Onyx.merge(`transactions_lonePending`, {...base, transactionID: 'lonePending', status: 'Pending', parentTransactionID: '', merchant: 'Lone pending'});

Clean up the injected rows when done:

['dedupPending1','dedupPosted1','lonePending'].forEach((id) => Onyx.merge(`transactions_${id}`, null));

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

Before (duplicate pending + posted rows):

After (single posted row):

melvin-bot · 2026-06-17T01:52:44Z

@tylerkaraszewski 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]

joekaufmanexpensify

Good for product 👍

tylerkaraszewski · 2026-06-18T18:33:39Z

Should we have a C+ review this? Not sure why I was assigned as first reviewer.

KioCoan · 2026-06-19T02:13:25Z

Should we have a C+ review this? Not sure why I was assigned as first reviewer.

Pullbear automatically assigned you. Just let me confirm this discussion before we move on.

KioCoan · 2026-06-24T01:14:14Z

@cead22 I addressed the changes and merged main to keep updated.

cead22 · 2026-06-25T12:22:12Z

(or inject the pair via Onyx: a Pending card row with the draft reportID, plus a Posted card row whose parentTransactionID is the pending's transactionID).

@KioCoan can you please share the onyx commands for each of the test steps so I can test this? Thanks

KioCoan · 2026-06-26T02:54:58Z

(or inject the pair via Onyx: a Pending card row with the draft reportID, plus a Posted card row whose parentTransactionID is the pending's transactionID).

@KioCoan can you please share the onyx commands for each of the test steps so I can test this? Thanks

const reportID = '<PASTE_REPORT_ID>';      
const base = {reportID, bank: 'Expensify Card', amount: -1234, currency: 'USD', created: '2026-06-25'};

Pending + posted on the same chain -> only the posted row should remain (run line 1, watch the pending appear, then line 2, watch it vanish):

Onyx.merge(`transactions_dedupPending1`, {...base, transactionID: 'dedupPending1', status: 'Pending', parentTransactionID: '',              merchant: 'Pending auth'});
Onyx.merge(`transactions_dedupPosted1`,  {...base, transactionID: 'dedupPosted1',  status: 'Posted',  parentTransactionID: 'dedupPending1', merchant: 'Posted clearing'});

Genuinely pending, no posted sibling (stays visible):

Onyx.merge(`transactions_lonePending`, {...base, transactionID: 'lonePending', status: 'Pending', parentTransactionID: '', merchant: 'Lone pending'});

cead22 · 2026-06-29T15:25:48Z

@KioCoan thanks! can you merge main, and also update the test and QA sections with the updated onyx steps?

KioCoan · 2026-06-29T19:55:07Z

Failed TypeScript check is not related to this PR. Seems like there is a fix in review, I'll merge main again once it's approved.

KioCoan · 2026-06-29T20:13:27Z

Checks are passing now. @cead22.

cead22 · 2026-06-29T22:37:06Z

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 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)
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)
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.
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

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

github-actions · 2026-06-29T22:39:31Z

🚧 cead22 has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

github-actions · 2026-06-29T22:56:10Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #93646.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-ab1dd05b115-638513b-01f93836099a6865d236f53a64458d07a80f89eb/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-ab1dd05-638513b-5b9b6cd9fe130ebe674245d65345bf96a64871cd/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://93646.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-06-30T12:06:07Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/cead22 in version: 9.4.25-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2026-07-01T19:44:54Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/cristipaval in version: 9.4.25-2 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android

KioCoan added 4 commits June 15, 2026 10:13

Add helper to hide transaction

13d7be4

Update index with getSuperdededPendingCardTransactionIDs

9bcb25b

Add scenarios to MoneyRequestReportUtils

0dc86f3

Update Transaction tests

1f19b1e

melvin-bot Bot assigned KioCoan Jun 16, 2026

KioCoan changed the title ~~WIP: Fix duplicated transactions on draft reports~~ Fix duplicate Expensify Card transactions on draft reports Jun 17, 2026

Fix spellcheck

d3eb110

KioCoan marked this pull request as ready for review June 17, 2026 01:52

KioCoan requested review from a team as code owners June 17, 2026 01:52

melvin-bot Bot requested review from joekaufmanexpensify and tylerkaraszewski and removed request for a team June 17, 2026 01:52

joekaufmanexpensify previously approved these changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

cead22 requested review from cead22 and removed request for tylerkaraszewski June 22, 2026 20:17

cead22 requested changes Jun 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

KioCoan added 2 commits June 23, 2026 11:58

Update naming

7ce674b

Update tests and helper function

83b403d

KioCoan dismissed joekaufmanexpensify’s stale review via 83b403d June 24, 2026 01:00

Merge branch 'main' into fixDuplicatedTransactionsOnDraftReports

25d22da

KioCoan requested a review from cead22 June 24, 2026 01:13

cead22 previously approved these changes Jun 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fixDuplicatedTransactionsOnDraftReports

ab57271

KioCoan dismissed cead22’s stale review via ab57271 June 29, 2026 19:22

Merge branch 'main' into fixDuplicatedTransactionsOnDraftReports

ff606d6

Merge branch 'main' into fixDuplicatedTransactionsOnDraftReports

542a73b

cead22 approved these changes Jun 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

cead22 merged commit ab1dd05 into Expensify:main Jun 29, 2026
33 of 34 checks passed

This was referenced Jun 29, 2026

Investigate workflow job failing on main: test / test (job 7) #94916

Closed

Investigate workflow job failing on main: test / test (job 6) #94917

Closed

KioCoan deleted the fixDuplicatedTransactionsOnDraftReports branch June 30, 2026 01:13

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-06-30 #94951

Closed

60 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

KioCoan commented Jun 16, 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!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

Uh oh!

joekaufmanexpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tylerkaraszewski commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

cead22 commented Jun 25, 2026

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

cead22 commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

KioCoan commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

cead22 commented Jun 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 29, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jun 30, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

KioCoan commented Jun 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cead22 commented Jun 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading