[No QA] Clean up unsafe type assertions in unit tests

[KJ21-ENG]

Explanation of Change

This test-only cleanup removes 172 @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion findings from the ten authorized unit-test files. It replaces unsafe assertions with production-derived types, typed mocks and fixtures, and narrow type-safe handling for intentional malformed runtime fixtures while preserving the existing test scenarios and runtime behavior.

Fixed Issues

$ #94739
PROPOSAL: #94739 (comment)

Count change

Current baseline source:

• The tracked config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv at base 2c95456c78d65e54730dcde1f758292472ab59fa records the baseline for @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion.

Before:

• tests/unit/BankAccountUtilsTest.ts: 16 findings
• tests/unit/ImportTransactions.test.ts: 16 findings
• tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts: 19 findings
• tests/unit/TransactionUtilsTest.ts: 20 findings
• tests/unit/ViolationUtilsTest.ts: 20 findings
• tests/unit/hooks/useAssignCard.test.ts: 16 findings
• tests/unit/hooks/useFilterFormValues.test.ts: 15 findings
• tests/unit/hooks/useSearchBulkActionsDuplicateTest.ts: 19 findings
• tests/unit/libs/SplitExpenseUtils.test.ts: 15 findings
• tests/unit/useAccountIndicatorChecksTest.ts: 16 findings

After:

• tests/unit/BankAccountUtilsTest.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/ImportTransactions.test.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/TransactionUtilsTest.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/ViolationUtilsTest.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/hooks/useAssignCard.test.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/hooks/useFilterFormValues.test.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/hooks/useSearchBulkActionsDuplicateTest.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/libs/SplitExpenseUtils.test.ts: 0 findings
• tests/unit/useAccountIndicatorChecksTest.ts: 0 findings

Net reduction:

• 172 fewer @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion findings across the ten target files.

TSV evidence:

• The exact base TSV rows above provide the 172-finding baseline. Complete verification for the exact ten-file diff reported zero remaining findings for every target, and the tracked TSV was restored unchanged; the signed commit b93b978a070c58b9b87fc82d6628b0210d56e3ea preserves that verified content.

Tests

1. The deterministic complete verification packet passed cleanup counting, focused formatting, focused lint, focused Jest through the worktree-aware resolver, and git diff --check for all ten targets.
2. Fork CI run 30562977469 passed typecheck, lint, format, React Compiler, and Jest for exact head b93b978a070c58b9b87fc82d6628b0210d56e3ea.
3. Focused typecheck is not run locally because no bounded project typecheck is available for these test files; Fork CI is authoritative for that check.
4. No manual platform testing was performed; the evidence is automated verification only.

Offline tests

N/A — this is a test-only type-safety cleanup; it changes no application runtime or network behavior, and no manual offline test was performed.

QA Steps

N/A — this is a test-only cleanup and the title starts with [No QA]; no staging or production manual QA was performed.

PR Author Checklist

Checklist note: every item below is checked to record that it was considered. Platform, staging or production, offline, screenshot or video, high-traffic, console, and product-component testing are N/A for this test-only cleanup; no manual platform or product testing is claimed. The automated evidence is listed in ### Tests.

• 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

N/A — no UI changes; no screenshots or videos were produced.

Changed files (10)

• tests/unit/BankAccountUtilsTest.ts
• tests/unit/ImportTransactions.test.ts
• tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts
• tests/unit/TransactionUtilsTest.ts
• tests/unit/ViolationUtilsTest.ts
• tests/unit/hooks/useAssignCard.test.ts
• tests/unit/hooks/useFilterFormValues.test.ts
• tests/unit/hooks/useSearchBulkActionsDuplicateTest.ts
• tests/unit/libs/SplitExpenseUtils.test.ts
• tests/unit/useAccountIndicatorChecksTest.ts

[melvin-bot]

@ikevin127 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]

[ikevin127]

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.

[ikevin127]

🟢 ReportUtilsTest.ts:956: The inline narrowing block is heavier than the assertion needs

This is a lot of hand-rolled in/typeof narrowing inline in the test body to read two fields.

personalDetailsCall[1] is a merge into ONYXKEYS.PERSONAL_DETAILS_LIST, so its value type is known, a small typed helper (e.g. narrow the merge value to PersonalDetailsList and pull Object.values(...).at(0)) would read cleaner and keep this idiom reusable across the other merge-call assertions in this file, rather than open-coding the guard once here.

Not blocking, but if this narrowing shape recurs it belongs in tests/utils, not copy-pasted.

Also minor: after the guard you switched avatar to non-optional access (accountExecutiveDetail.avatar) but left accountExecutiveDetail?.accountID optional two lines down, pick one now that it's narrowed.

[ikevin127]

🟢 LGTM - Only 1 non-blocking comment above ☝️

Large but disciplined test-only cleanup (172 no-unsafe-type-assertion removals across ten files). I ran all ten suites against the checked-out head (b93b978a070, the PR's exact head): ReportUtils + TransactionUtils gave 1459/1459, and the other eight are green under UTC.

Three ImportTransactions date tests fail only under my local PDT timezone (created: "2024-01-15" vs "2024-01-14"); they pass under TZ=UTC, the diff never touches date logic, and CI is UTC-green, so that's an environment artifact, not the PR.

Nothing here blocks.