Add unit tests for getDomainByFundID

[MelvinBot]

Explanation of Change

Follow-up to PR #93928, addressing mountiny's review comment asking for unit tests to be added for getDomainByFundID in a follow-up.

This PR adds unit-test coverage for getDomainByFundID in tests/unit/CardUtilsTest.ts. That helper resolves the Domain backing a fund (card account): it first looks the domain up by its domain_<fundID> key, then falls back to scanning for a domain whose accountID matches the fund. No production code is changed — this is test-only.

The new describe('getDomainByFundID', ...) block covers each branch of the helper:

• Resolves the domain keyed by domain_<fundID> (primary path).
• Falls back to a domain whose accountID matches the fund when it isn't keyed by the fund ID.
• Prefers the keyed domain over one that only matches on accountID.
• Returns undefined when domains is undefined.
• Returns undefined when nothing is keyed by or matches the fund.
• Ignores undefined entries while scanning for an accountID match.

AI Tests note: npm run typecheck-tsgo passes locally. npm test / oxfmt / lint could not be run in MelvinBot's sandboxed environment (execution is gated there), so the new tests were verified by reasoning against the helper's implementation and by matching the file's existing formatting conventions. CI is the authoritative gate — please confirm checks pass.

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

Tests

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review".
// Please describe what tests you performed that validate your change worked.

1. Run npm test -- tests/unit/CardUtilsTest.ts -t "getDomainByFundID" and verify the new getDomainByFundID tests pass.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — unit-test-only change, no runtime/UI behavior is affected.

QA Steps

// TODO: The human co-author must fill out the QA tests you ran before marking this PR as "ready for review", or add "[No QA]" to the PR title.

• 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 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 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)
• 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.
• 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

N/A — unit-test-only change with no UI impact.

[MelvinBot]

Fixed the failing Oxfmt check by running npm run fmt and committing the result (e123b88).

What was wrong: oxfmt wanted the import ONYXKEYS from '@src/ONYXKEYS' line reordered — it sorts @src/ONYXKEYS after the @src/libs/* imports. That single-line reorder was the entire diff, so the fix is formatting-only with no behavior change.

The other failing check, checklist (PR Author Checklist), is expected — it's the human-only author checklist and can't be filled out by me. It'll pass once you complete the checklist items and the Tests/QA sections.

[MelvinBot]

✅ The Oxfmt check is now passing — my earlier fix (e123b88) landed.

The only remaining failing check is checklist (PR Author Checklist), which is a human-only check — it fails until the co-author completes the checklist items and fills in the Tests/QA sections. I can't complete that on your behalf. All other checks (tests, typecheck, ESLint, etc.) are currently running/pending, not failing.

No further code fix is needed from me here.

[MelvinBot]

✅ All actionable checks are now green — the Oxfmt check fix I pushed earlier (e123b88) passed, along with test, ESLint, Storybook, knip, and the rest. typecheck is still running but not failing.

The only remaining failing check is checklist (PR Author Checklist). That's a human-only check — it can't be completed by me. It'll go green once you check off the boxes in the PR description and fill in the Tests / QA sections.

No further code fix is needed from me here.