[No QA] Remove unsafe type assertions from OptionsListUtilsTest.tsx tests

[KJ21-ENG]

Explanation of Change

Removed @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion violations from tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.tsx as part of the cleanup for Expensify/App issue #94739.

What changed:

• Replaced unsafe type assertions in OptionsListUtils tests with truthfully typed fixtures that include required fields and valid enum values.
• Narrowed optional report lookups and array elements before dereference while preserving the original assertion semantics.

Why this approach is safe:

• The change is limited to an existing unit-test file and does not modify production behavior.
• Focused local verification and trusted Fork CI passed lint, formatting, type checking, React Compiler checks, and all 306 focused tests.

Reviewer focus:

1. Confirm each replacement fixture satisfies its repository type without hiding missing required data.
2. Confirm the explicit existence checks preserve failure coverage for missing collection entries and array elements.

Safety checks:

• The target-rule count decreased from 49 to 0 and the generated seatbelt inventory was restored after verification.
• Independent scope, type-safety, and regression review cleared the final revision.
• The exact signed commit passed the trusted Fork CI workflow.

Fixed Issues

$ #94739
PROPOSAL: #94739 (comment)

Count change

Current baseline source:

• config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv

Before:

• tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.tsx: 49 violations

After:

• tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.tsx: 0 violations

Net reduction:

• 49 fewer @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion violations.

TSV evidence:

• Writable lint removed the target row when the count reached zero, or updated it to the exact remaining count.
• The generated TSV was restored byte-for-byte and is intentionally not included in this PR because Expensify/App post-merge automation tightens the baseline on main.

Tests

1. Run:

   npm run lint -- --show-warnings tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.tsx
   

   Verify focused lint passes with no target-rule warnings for the edited file.

2. Run:

   CI=true npm run lint -- --no-cache --show-warnings tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.tsx
   

   Verify the generated seatbelt row reflects 0 violations, then restore config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv before committing.

3. Run:

   npm run test -- tests/unit/OptionsListUtilsTest.tsx
   

   Verify the focused test suite passes.

4. Verification result: Focused lint, formatter checks, React Compiler compliance, diff hygiene, full type checking, and all 306 focused Jest tests passed. Trusted Fork CI also passed every required check.

Offline tests

Not applicable. This test-only cleanup does not change application behavior, network handling, or offline behavior.

QA Steps

No manual QA is required because this PR changes only existing automated test fixtures and assertions and has no user-facing behavior.

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 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 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

Android: Native

Not applicable. The change is confined to automated unit tests and introduces no platform-specific or user-facing behavior.

No screenshots or videos are needed because there is no visual or user-facing change.

Android: mWeb Chrome

Not applicable. The change is confined to automated unit tests and introduces no platform-specific or user-facing behavior.

No screenshots or videos are needed because there is no visual or user-facing change.

iOS: Native

Not applicable. The change is confined to automated unit tests and introduces no platform-specific or user-facing behavior.

No screenshots or videos are needed because there is no visual or user-facing change.

iOS: mWeb Safari

Not applicable. The change is confined to automated unit tests and introduces no platform-specific or user-facing behavior.

No screenshots or videos are needed because there is no visual or user-facing change.

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Not applicable. The change is confined to automated unit tests and introduces no platform-specific or user-facing behavior.

No screenshots or videos are needed because there is no visual or user-facing change.

[melvin-bot]

@blimpich 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]

[blimpich]

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 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
  • 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
  • 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 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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.4.42-0 🚀

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