Remove Onyx.connect() usage for ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY_TAGS in handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation function from src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistance/handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation.ts

[Guccio163]

Explanation of Change

This PR is part of a refactor to remove Onyx.connect for the keys: ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY_TAGS from the src/pages/iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistance/handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation.ts file and replace it with useOnyx.

It isolates the handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation function from the ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY_TAGS Onyx.connect key .

Fixed Issues

$ #72721
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Preconditions

1. An account that is a member of a Collect/Control workspace.
2. On that workspace: Distance rate enabled, and Tags enabled with at least one tag list containing a few tags.
3. Open the workspace's policy expense chat.

Steps

1. In the policy expense chat, tap + → Create expense.
2. Select the Distance type.
3. Open the Manual tab and enter a distance (e.g. 10).
4. Tap Next / Submit.

Expected result

• The app does not crash and advances without errors (no "is not a function", no blank screen).

• You land on the confirmation page (or, on the skip-confirmation path, the expense is created directly in the report).

• On confirmation, the Tag field is available and shows the tags from this workspace (not empty and not from another policy) — confirming policyTagList resolved correctly for the target report.

• After submitting, the expense appears in the report with the correct distance amount, and the selected tag (if any) is saved.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Same as tests

• 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

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-06-24.at.10.36.16.mov

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Looks like you've decreased code coverage for some files. Please write tests to increase, or at least maintain, the existing level of code coverage. See our documentation here for how to interpret this table.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/hooks/useMoneyRequestPolicyTags.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/hooks/useMoneyRequestPolicyTagsForReport.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...stance/handleMoneyRequestStepDistanceNavigation.ts	82.79% <ø> (-0.88%)	⬇️
...RequestStepDistance/hooks/useDistanceNavigation.ts	88.23% <100.00%> (+0.73%)	⬆️
...RequestStepDistance/hooks/useOdometerNavigation.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...st/step/IOURequestStepDistanceGPS/index.native.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../iou/request/step/IOURequestStepDistanceManual.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 25 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@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]

[melvin-bot]

@amyevans 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]

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9d478ce4a1

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".

[Guccio163]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6e0a2e59d9

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".

[parasharrajat]

Will be checking it shortly. I will get this unblocked first.

[flaviadefaria]

No new product considerations - removing my assignment and unsubscribing.

[Guccio163]

@parasharrajat bump here since it just got unblocked 👀

[Guccio163]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉

Reviewed commit: f85121a297

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".

[parasharrajat]

@MelvinBot review.

[parasharrajat]

Let's add a comment to this hook and the one we added in the last PR to explain the purpose of these hooks. These hooks are case-specific hooks and can't be used widely.

[Guccio163]

Added 👍

[MelvinBot]

Review: 👍 Looks good — behaviorally equivalent migration

I traced the old getMoneyRequestPolicyTags (Onyx.connect) against the new useMoneyRequestPolicyTagsForReport + useMoneyRequestPolicyTags path term-by-term through the iouReportPolicyID fallback chain, and it resolves to the same policyID in every case. All 4 production callers pass the now-required policyTagList, and CI is green.

Equivalence check (per ?? term)

Old effective logic (callers never passed existingIOUReport):

iouReportPolicyID =
    (moneyRequestReportID ? allReports[REPORT+moneyRequestReportID]?.policyID : undefined) ??
    currentChatReport?.policyID ??      // getReportOrDraftReport(report.chatReportID) for MRR, else report
    allReports[REPORT+participant.reportID]?.policyID

1. existingIOUReport — old callers didn't pass it; new callers don't pass existingIOUReportPolicyID. Both undefined. ✓
2. moneyRequestReportID — same isMoneyRequestReport ? report.reportID : ''; new wraps with getNonEmptyStringOnyxID so '' → undefined key instead of leaking the whole REPORT collection. ✓ (slight improvement)
3. parentChatReport — old: getReportOrDraftReport(chatReportID)?.policyID = report ?? draft; new: chatReportPolicyID ?? chatReportDraftPolicyID. Same sources. ✓
4. participant.reportID — old used getMoneyRequestParticipantOptions(...).at(0)?.reportID, which internally calls the same getMoneyRequestParticipantsFromReport the new code now calls directly. For policyExpenseChat/selfDM/invoiceRoom the first participant's reportID is chatReport.reportID in both; the DM branch yields no reportID in both. The getParticipantsOption/getReportOption mapping only added display fields, not a different reportID. ✓

A couple of minor, non-blocking observations:

• parentChatReport resolution order is subtly different (edge case only). Old resolved the report object first (report ?? draft) then read .policyID; new reads chatReportPolicyID ?? chatReportDraftPolicyID. These diverge only if the chat report exists in REPORT with an empty policyID while a REPORT_DRAFT copy has one — old would fall through to the participant term, new would use the draft's policyID. Vanishingly rare and the new behavior is arguably more correct, so just flagging it.
• selectReportPolicyID is duplicated in both useMoneyRequestPolicyTags.ts and useMoneyRequestPolicyTagsForReport.ts. Trivial DRY nit — could be a shared module-level helper, but fine as-is.
• Compute moves from call-time → render-time. policyTagList is now captured in the navigation closure at render rather than computed inside the callback. This is the expected useOnyx migration pattern and stays fresh via re-render, so no concern — noting for awareness.

Callers verified

policyTagList is required and supplied by all four navigation entry points:
useDistanceNavigation.ts:148, useOdometerNavigation.ts, IOURequestStepDistanceGPS/index.native.tsx, and IOURequestStepDistanceManual.tsx:202. Each calls the hook unconditionally at the top level (no conditional-hook issue), and sources currentUserAccountID from the session user. MoneyRequestTest's baseParams was updated with policyTagList: {}.

I couldn't exercise the runtime flow itself, so the confirmation-page tag behavior in the test steps still warrants the usual manual QA — but the code path is sound.

[parasharrajat]

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.

08.07.2026_22.31.22_REC.mp4

🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed

[parasharrajat]

One comment #94300 (comment)

[amyevans]

Looks good!

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #94300.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-ce614eb50de-75e62e1-7f4feb4837596494620224d6e88fde66286363df/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-ce614eb-75e62e1-482ff29dbfcec4a0a53e1e6a4d35b124087a0de1/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://94300.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/amyevans in version: 9.4.32-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under docs/articles.

This PR is an internal Onyx refactor — it removes Onyx.connect() usage for ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY_TAGS in the distance money-request flow and replaces it with the reactive useOnyx-based hooks useMoneyRequestPolicyTags / useMoneyRequestPolicyTagsForReport. The policyTagList is now threaded in as a parameter rather than resolved via the deprecated getMoneyRequestPolicyTags.

There is no user-facing behavior change: the expected outcome per the PR's own test steps is identical (no crash, lands on the confirmation page, and the Tag field resolves the same tags as before). Nothing about product behavior, feature names, tab names, settings labels, or buttons has changed.

Since Expensify's help site documents user-facing product behavior — not internal state-management/architecture — no documentation updates are needed and no draft docs PR was created.

@Guccio163, since this is an internal refactor with no user-facing change, there is no help site PR to review. If you believe a behavior did change and docs should be updated, let me know and I'll draft the PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.32-3 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

• Android