[NoQA] feat: add canMergeReports eligibility helper for the Merge Reports project by dmkt9 · Pull Request #94939 · Expensify/App

dmkt9 · 2026-06-30T08:55:38Z

Explanation of Change

Determines whether the current user is eligible to initiate a merge of the selected expense reports.

Returns false if ANY of the following conditions hold:

Fewer than 2 reports are selected — a merge requires at least two participants.
Reports span multiple ownerAccountIDs — cross-account merges are not supported.
Reports span multiple policyIDs — cross-workspace merges are not supported in v1.
Reports are not all in the same workflow state (stateNum / statusNum) — only reports at the same point in the approval workflow can be merged, preventing an Open draft from being silently merged onto a Processing report and thereby bypassing approvals.
Processing reports have different managerIDs — each report must be waiting on the same approver so that the combined report lands in exactly one inbox. (This check is redundant for Open reports: the same-state rule above already prevents mixing Open and Processing, and same-account + same-workspace already guarantees a matching managerID for drafts.)
Any report fails canUserPerformWriteAction, or the current user is neither the report owner nor an admin / approver with write access to that report.
Any report is already settled, approved, or closed — these terminal states cannot be merged.

NOTE: This function only checks eligibility to START the merge flow. The merge destination (the report that absorbs the others) is chosen later in the RHP and is not validated here.

Fixed Issues

$ #94870
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

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

…oject

melvin-bot · 2026-06-30T09:11:51Z

@situchan 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: c78d96bfd6

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".

…oject

dmkt9 · 2026-06-30T09:41:58Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 1e361dde2d

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".

situchan · 2026-06-30T10:00:33Z

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 1e361dde2d

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".

codecov · 2026-07-01T03:01:41Z

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	`86.07% <96.42%> (+2.24%)`	⬆️
... and 4499 files with indirect coverage changes

situchan · 2026-07-01T09:14:32Z

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

situchan

We have similar logic:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 2971 in 989d3ea

    
           function isMoneyRequestReportEligibleForMerge(reportOrReportID: Report | string, isAdmin: boolean): boolean {

It already encodes per-report merge eligibility (owner vs. admin vs. manager × Open/Processing/awaiting-approval states).

The new canMergeReports re-implements overlapping logic (owner/admin/approver + state gating) instead of calling it per report.

Worth checking whether canMergeReports should be selectedReports.every(r => isMoneyRequestReportEligibleForMerge(r, isAdmin)) plus the cross-report invariants (same owner/policy/state/manager), rather than a parallel hand-rolled permission check that can drift from the existing one.

…oject

dmkt9 · 2026-07-03T10:27:38Z

@situchan Thanks. Updated

situchan · 2026-07-03T10:38:22Z

@codex review

MelvinBot · 2026-07-03T10:42:11Z

Review: `canMergeReports` eligibility helper

Overall this is a clean, well-documented implementation that matches the issue spec, and it correctly threads the passed currentUserAccountID through isReportManager/isReportOwner (addressing the earlier bot concern about relying on the module-level session cache). CI is green with good patch coverage. A few points below — none are blockers.

1. Terminal-state rejection is implicit, not explicit (low)

The issue lists "Any report is settled, approved, or closed" as a distinct condition, but the code enforces it only indirectly via isMoneyRequestReportEligibleForMerge, whose admin/submitter/manager branches all require Open or Processing state. I traced all three paths and confirmed settled/approved/closed reports are rejected, so this is correct today — but it's fragile: a future change to isMoneyRequestReportEligibleForMerge could silently open a hole in what the issue calls "the security surface for the feature." Consider an explicit terminal-state guard for defense-in-depth and readability.

2. Test isolation gaps (low — tests pass but don't prove what their names claim)

The tests are thorough on the reject side, but a few don't exercise the branch their title implies:

Terminal-state tests (settled/approved/closed) each pair a terminal report with a fresh Open report, so they're rejected by the same-state check, not by terminal-state logic. Add a case with two reports in the same terminal state to actually prove homogeneous terminal selections are rejected (this is the gap that makes point 1 matter).
Approver / Processing happy-paths: beforeEach resets the policy role to ADMIN, so the "approver on Processing reports" test passes through the admin branch of isMoneyRequestReportEligibleForMerge, not the manager/approver branch it's meant to cover. Set the policy role to USER first to genuinely exercise the approver path.
Misleading name: "returns true for two valid Processing reports when user is the report owner and approver matches" asserts false in its submitter sub-case — the returns true title is inaccurate.

3. `isAdmin` is derived from the ambient session, not the passed `currentUserAccountID` (design note)

policy?.role reflects the locally-stored (session user's) role, while owner/manager checks use the passed currentUserAccountID. So if the helper is ever called with an account ID that differs from the session user, the admin determination won't match. This is inherent — an arbitrary account's policy role isn't knowable from the local allPolicies object — and matches the author's stated intent, so it's fine as long as callers always pass the current session user's ID. Worth a one-line comment noting that assumption so future callers don't misuse the API.

4. Nit: inconsistent optional chaining

Line 13379 guards firstSelectedReport?.ownerAccountID, but lines 13384/13391/13400 access firstSelectedReport.policyID/.stateNum/.managerID without ?.. It's type-safe (TS narrows after the first check) and correct, just reads inconsistently.

Nothing here is a merge blocker — the logic is sound. Points 1 and 2 together are the most worth addressing since they concern the security-critical rejection path.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c2a599eb77

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".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-07-03T10:45:02Z

+        // the same managerID so the merged report lands in exactly one approver's
+        // inbox. For Open reports the managerID may legitimately be unset, but the
+        // same-state constraint above already prevents mixing Open and Processing.
+        if (isProcessingReport(report)) {


Validate approver parity for draft reports

This only enforces a shared managerID after reports are already Processing, but draft/open expense reports are not guaranteed to share an approver just because they have the same owner and policy. getSubmitToAccountID() can choose a rule approver from each report's own transaction category/tag approval rules, so two Open reports on the same workspace can route to different approvers; this helper would return true and let a merge collapse those expenses into a single approval path.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

melvin-bot · 2026-07-03T10:52:41Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #94870 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

github-actions · 2026-07-06T05:30:22Z

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

OSBotify · 2026-07-06T05:35:09Z

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

github-actions · 2026-07-06T05:36:33Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #94939.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-e05d40ad168-9f3daf7-2aee42f68a70ba689eabf0e76b5cd9a6e40d425c/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-e05d40a-9f3daf7-172bcd8e564fc53b546bd067f93588db8249eb22/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://94939.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

OSBotify · 2026-07-06T15:46:53Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/mollfpr in version: 9.4.28-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-07-06T15:51:24Z

No help site changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against App/docs/articles and applied HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, and TEMPLATE.md. No help site documentation changes are needed, so I did not create a draft docs PR.

Why: This PR is internal groundwork for the Merge Reports project. It only adds the canMergeReports eligibility helper (plus refactoring isReportManager / isReportOwner to accept a currentUserAccountID param) and unit tests. There is:

No user-facing UI, button, menu item, or copy added.
No end-to-end merge flow shipped — as the PR description states, this helper "only checks eligibility to START the merge flow", and the merge destination/flow is handled later in the RHP.

Help articles document behavior users can see and act on. Since nothing user-facing is exposed here, there's nothing to document yet. Documentation should be authored when the Merge Reports feature actually surfaces in the UI (with the real button labels, menu paths, and flow), so the help content matches the live experience.

I also confirmed there is no existing article covering "merge expense reports" — the current "merge" articles (e.g. Merge-Accounts.md) are about merging accounts, which is unrelated.

If a later PR in this project ships the user-facing merge flow, that's the right point to tag me to create the help site update.

@dmkt9, this is a heads-up that no docs PR was created. If you believe a user-facing behavior did change here and warrants documentation, let me know and I'll draft it.

OSBotify · 2026-07-07T17:54:37Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.28-2 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android

feat: add canMergeReports eligibility helper for the Merge Reports pr…

2782ab4

…oject

melvin-bot Bot assigned dmkt9 Jun 30, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into feat/canMergeReports-eligibility-helper

c78d96b

dmkt9 marked this pull request as ready for review June 30, 2026 09:11

dmkt9 requested review from a team as code owners June 30, 2026 09:11

melvin-bot Bot requested review from heyjennahay and situchan and removed request for a team and heyjennahay June 30, 2026 09:11

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team June 30, 2026 09:11

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated

feat: add canMergeReports eligibility helper for the Merge Reports pr…

1e361dd

…oject

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated

Comment thread src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jun 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated

Merge branch 'main' into feat/canMergeReports-eligibility-helper

1eeae36

situchan reviewed Jul 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated

dmkt9 added 3 commits July 3, 2026 16:23

Merge branch 'main' into feat/canMergeReports-eligibility-helper

120dd7e

feat: add canMergeReports eligibility helper for the Merge Reports pr…

9c6e781

…oject

fix spell

c2a599e

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jul 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

situchan approved these changes Jul 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from mollfpr July 3, 2026 10:52

mollfpr approved these changes Jul 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

mollfpr merged commit e05d40a into Expensify:main Jul 6, 2026
36 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-07-06 #95398

Closed

46 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-07-14] [Merge Reports][FE] canMergeReports() eligibility helper + unit tests #94870

Open

Uh oh!

Conversation

dmkt9 commented Jun 30, 2026

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jun 30, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jun 30, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

situchan commented Jun 30, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jul 1, 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!

situchan commented Jul 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

situchan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jul 3, 2026

Review: canMergeReports eligibility helper

1. Terminal-state rejection is implicit, not explicit (low)

2. Test isolation gaps (low — tests pass but don't prove what their names claim)

3. isAdmin is derived from the ambient session, not the passed currentUserAccountID (design note)

4. Nit: inconsistent optional chaining

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jul 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 6, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jul 6, 2026

No help site changes required

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jul 1, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading

situchan commented Jul 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Review: `canMergeReports` eligibility helper

3. `isAdmin` is derived from the ambient session, not the passed `currentUserAccountID` (design note)