[CP Staging] Add payer admin logic for manual reimbursement payers by NikkiWines · Pull Request #95547 · Expensify/App

NikkiWines · 2026-07-07T22:51:26Z

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

$ #95561
PROPOSAL:

Tests

Same as QA

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Setup

Create a Control workspace
Invite User B as payments admin (not full admin)
Workflows → enable payments (manual/indirect, no bank account)
Workflows → Payer = User B (payments admin)

Repro / verify

Create a Control workspace.
Invite user as payments admin to the workspace.
Change Payer to payments admin in workspace settings > Workflows > Payer.
Go to staging.new.expensify.com
[Payments admin] Create an expense in workspace chat.
[Payments admin] Click Submit.
[Owner] Approve payments admin's report.
[Payments admin] Open the report.

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

Screen.Recording.2026-07-08.at.00.34.32.mov

melvin-bot · 2026-07-07T22:51:48Z

@dmkt9 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]

mjasikowski · 2026-07-08T07:48:38Z

@NikkiWines we have TS and ESLint failures here
@dmkt9 can you review this as a priority?

dmkt9 · 2026-07-08T09:15:02Z

Sure, I'm working on it

dmkt9 · 2026-07-08T09:25:15Z

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

2026-07-08.17-37-51.mp4

dmkt9 · 2026-07-08T09:58:38Z

@NikkiWines My payment admins aren't receiving any expenses to pay. Does this happen on your side as well?

2026-07-08.16-56-59.mp4

NikkiWines · 2026-07-08T10:20:38Z

@dmkt9 hmm no, my payments admin sees the report under For you on the home page and in the Spend page - like in the video in the OP

dmkt9 · 2026-07-08T10:31:27Z

@dmkt9 hmm no, my payments admin sees the report under For you on the home page and in the Spend page - like in the video in the OP

In your video, you use the payments admin as the submitter, right?

However, I think the bug reported in #95537 is different. In that case, the owner of the policy submits and approves an expense, but the expense does not appear on the payments admin's side for payment. So I think this could be a backend bug.

Our PR is actually fixing #95561 instead.

NikkiWines · 2026-07-08T10:36:08Z

In your video, you use the payments admin as the submitter, right?

no in my video the submitter is just a normal member on the policy.

Then there are two admins: admin@dev.com who is the policy owner and admin2@dev.com who is the payments admin

NikkiWines · 2026-07-08T10:36:28Z

So I think this could be a backend bug.

hmmm possibly 🤔

dmkt9 · 2026-07-08T10:46:45Z

In your video, you use the payments admin as the submitter, right?

no in my video the submitter is just a normal member on the policy.

Then there are two admins: admin@dev.com who is the policy owner and admin2@dev.com who is the payments admin

I just tried with a regular member, and the issue still happens on my side. Could you please recheck one more time?

dmkt9 · 2026-07-08T12:49:50Z

@mjasikowski @NikkiWines This PR looks good to me. However, we need to update the QA steps to reflect that it fixes #95561.

I've tried reverting #92787, but the issue in #95537 still occurs on my side.

mjasikowski · 2026-07-08T14:11:55Z

thanks @dmkt9, edited the OP, will look into #95537 separately

OSBotify · 2026-07-08T14:31:32Z

✋ 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 · 2026-07-08T14:39:17Z

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

github-actions · 2026-07-08T14:49:57Z

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #95547.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-31e0bcf6665-ee2dd9f-fe62a3b0bdfcf3a4f1694d87ced58ce9237f78b8/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-31e0bcf-ee2dd9f-f3d05acb0f666b450fc30a1f5f64d1d3a6dbd5dd/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://95547.pr-testing.expensify.com

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[CP Staging] Add payer admin logic for manual reimbursement payers (cherry picked from commit 31e0bcf) (cherry-picked to staging by roryabraham)

OSBotify · 2026-07-08T16:35:27Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.29-1 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-07-08T16:38:36Z

🤖 Help site review: no changes required

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the help site articles under docs/articles, and I don't believe any documentation updates are needed.

Why: This PR is a bug fix (a DeployBlockerCash on a new feature, Expensify/App#95561) that restores the Pay button for a Payments Admin who is designated as the workspace payer in manual reimbursement mode. It corrects internal payer/reimburser authorization logic (isPolicyPayer / isPayer now also honor policy.reimburser and allow a non-admin member with WORKFLOWS_PAYMENTS write access to pay). It does not introduce or rename any feature, tab, setting, or button, and it doesn't change any user-facing workflow.

The existing docs already describe payers/reimbursers generically and don't state that a Payments Admin can't be a designated payer, so they remain accurate:

Workspace Workflows — How to Set Up a Payment Account
Managing Workspace Members (references the Payments Admin scoped role)

Because no changes are required, I did not create a draft help site PR.

@NikkiWines, please confirm this assessment reflects the current behavior. If you feel the Payer / Payments Admin permissions should be documented more explicitly on the help site, let me know and I'll open a draft PR for it.

OSBotify · 2026-07-09T10:25:07Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.31-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-07-09T10:27:27Z

🤖 Help site review: no changes required.

I reviewed the changes in this PR against the existing help-site articles under docs/articles, and no updates are needed.

Why: This PR is a permissions bug fix (issue #95561) — it makes the Pay button appear for a Payments Admin who has been designated as the Payer in Workflows while using manual reimbursement (Mark as Paid). It corrects who is recognized as an authorized payer (isPayer / isPolicyPayer now honor policy.reimburser and members with WORKFLOWS_PAYMENTS write access); it does not add or change any user-facing feature, setting, label, or flow that the help site describes.

The relevant articles already document the underlying behavior accurately at the appropriate level of detail:

Workspace-Workflows.md — describes choosing the workspace payer under Workflows and enabling Mark as Paid.
Pay-Expenses.md — describes tapping Pay / marking a report as paid.
Managing-Workspace-Members.md — documents the Payments Admin scoped role.

None of these describe Pay-button visibility rules at the granularity this fix touches, so they remain correct as written. No draft docs PR was created.

@NikkiWines, please confirm you agree no help-site changes are required. If you'd like me to add or adjust any article to call out that a Payments Admin can be set as the Payer, reply with @MelvinBot and I'll open a draft PR.

OSBotify · 2026-07-09T10:44:46Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/grgia in version: 9.4.31-0 🚀

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

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Android

OSBotify · 2026-07-09T11:07:11Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.32-0 🚀

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

MelvinBot · 2026-07-09T11:09:34Z

🤖 Re-reviewed on re-trigger — determination unchanged: no help-site changes required, no draft PR created.

I re-checked the diff against the help-site articles and the authoring guidelines (HELP_AUTHORING_GUIDELINES.md, HELPSITE_NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, TEMPLATE.md).

This PR is a permissions bug fix for issue #95561: it makes the Pay button appear for a Payments Admin who is set as the Payer in Workflows while using Mark as Paid (manual reimbursement). It restores already-shipped, intended behavior — it does not introduce or change any user-facing feature, setting, label, or flow that the help site documents. Pay-button visibility at this per-role granularity isn't something the public articles describe, so they remain accurate as written:

Workspace-Workflows.md — documents choosing the workspace payer and enabling Mark as Paid.
Pay-Expenses.md — documents tapping Pay / marking a report as paid.
Managing-Workspace-Members.md — documents the Payments Admin scoped role.

The one adjacent gap I noticed is that the Workflows article describes the payer narrowly as "a Workspace Admin," without noting a Payments Admin can also be designated as the payer. That gap predates this PR (the payer-designation feature shipped earlier) and isn't caused by this change, so I didn't open a PR for it here.

@NikkiWines, if you'd like me to update the Workflows article to explicitly state that a Payments Admin can be set as the Payer, reply with @MelvinBot open that docs PR and I'll create the draft PR, apply HelpDot, and assign it to you.

NikkiWines added 2 commits July 7, 2026 23:22

allow payer admins to pay in manual reimbursement mode

7d8381d

add tests

b8eb22b

NikkiWines requested a review from mjasikowski July 7, 2026 22:51

NikkiWines self-assigned this Jul 7, 2026

NikkiWines requested review from a team as code owners July 7, 2026 22:51

melvin-bot Bot requested review from FitseTLT, bernhardoj and joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team July 7, 2026 22:51

NikkiWines requested review from a team and dmkt9 and removed request for FitseTLT and joekaufmanexpensify July 7, 2026 22:51

melvin-bot Bot requested review from a team, abzokhattab, heyjennahay and rojiphil and removed request for a team July 7, 2026 22:51

NikkiWines requested review from a team and removed request for bernhardoj July 7, 2026 22:51

melvin-bot Bot requested review from JmillsExpensify and removed request for a team July 7, 2026 22:51

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team July 7, 2026 22:51

lint fixes

375565a

dmkt9 approved these changes Jul 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

mjasikowski approved these changes Jul 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

mjasikowski merged commit 31e0bcf into main Jul 8, 2026
36 checks passed

mjasikowski deleted the nikki-add-payeradmin-exception branch July 8, 2026 14:22

OSBotify added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Jul 8, 2026

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2026

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2026-07-07 #95520

Closed

77 tasks

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2026

[Due for payment 2026-07-16] Expense - Pay button is not shown for payments admin when payments admin is the payer #95561

Closed

7 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

NikkiWines commented Jul 7, 2026 • edited by mjasikowski 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 Jul 7, 2026

Uh oh!

mjasikowski commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

NikkiWines commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

NikkiWines commented Jul 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

NikkiWines commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

dmkt9 commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

mjasikowski commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

NikkiWines commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited by mjasikowski

Loading

dmkt9 commented Jul 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

NikkiWines commented Jul 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading