Remove getReportTransactions callers' reliance on the deprecated default (Part 1)

[linhvovan29546]

Remove getReportTransactions callers' reliance on the deprecated default (Part 1). getReportTransactions() falls back to a deprecated global when the allReportsTransactions param is omitted. This PR migrates the first two callers outside ReportUtils.ts and marks the function @deprecated so future callers don't reintroduce the implicit fallback while the rest of the migration is in progress.

Explanation of Change

getReportTransactions() in ReportUtils.ts falls back to a deprecated global (deprecatedReportsTransactions) whenever its allReportsTransactions parameter is omitted. This is part 1 of migrating external callers off that implicit default:

• DynamicConfirmationPage.tsx now reuses the useReportTransactionsCollection result it already fetches for the same reportID, instead of making a separate bare getReportTransactions call that relies on the deprecated global.
• OptionsListUtilsTest.tsx now builds the expected transaction list directly from the transaction the test already created, instead of relying on the deprecated global being populated via Onyx.
• getReportTransactions is now marked @deprecated, with a note that it will be removed once every caller passes allReportsTransactions explicitly, so other in-flight PRs don't add new bare calls to it while the rest of the migration is in progress.

Fixed Issues

$ #66418
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

• Create a report with exactly one expense.

• Open the expense → Merge expenses, select an eligible expense from a different report, and proceed to the confirmation page.

• Tap Merge expenses to confirm.

• Verify that the merge expense flow works the same as in production.

• Repeat the steps starting with a report containing 2+ expenses. Confirm that the normal navigation behavior remains unchanged and there is no regression for the multi-expense case.

• Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as tests

QA Steps

Same as tests

• 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 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

telegram-cloud-document-5-6089154003747224618.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

telegram-cloud-document-5-6089154003747224621.mp4

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2026-08-27.at.16.00.03.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-08-27.at.14.56.15.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2026-08-27.at.14.44.40.mov

[codecov]

Codecov Report

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts	87.32% <ø> (ø)
...pages/TransactionMerge/DynamicConfirmationPage.tsx	67.56% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann 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]

[JmillsExpensify]

No product review required.

[DylanDylann]

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

Screen.Recording.2026-09-03.at.18.00.09.mov

[DylanDylann]

@linhvovan29546 Could you resolve conflict?

[Valforte]

LGTM

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

🧪🧪 Use the links below to test this adhoc build on Android, iOS, and Web. Happy testing! 🧪🧪
Built from App PR #99633.

Android 🤖	iOS 🍎
https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-android-Adhoc-00e5e06-da340ca-8fe1efaa4c152ead11c15d4874c7bd38849a15e9/index.html	https://ad-hoc-expensify-cash.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rock-artifacts/ad-hoc/rock-ios-device-AdHoc-00e5e06-da340ca-b14a0e515522600f86cd8ce2303ea1794cdf501c/index.html

Web 🕸️
https://99633.pr-testing.expensify.com

---

👀 View the workflow run that generated this build 👀

[OSBotify]

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

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Valforte in version: 9.4.70-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 No help site changes are required for this PR.

This is an internal refactor with no user-facing behavior change, so nothing under docs/articles needs updating. I did not create a draft PR — which also means there's no HelpDot label or assignment to apply.

Why

All four changed files are internal:

File	What changed	User-facing?
src/libs/ReportUtils.ts:1310	JSDoc comment reworded to @deprecated	No
src/pages/TransactionMerge/DynamicConfirmationPage.tsx:109	Reads the same "does this report have exactly one expense" condition from the already-fetched useReportTransactionsCollection result instead of a bare getReportTransactions call	No — same condition, same navigation outcome
config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv	Records existing no-deprecated counts for the newly-deprecated function	No — lint bookkeeping
tests/unit/ReportAlternateTextUtilsTest.ts	Builds the expected transaction list directly	No — test only

There are no copy, label, button, screen, or flow changes. Your own test plan confirms the intent: "Verify that the merge expense flow works the same as in production."

I checked the article that covers this flow — How to Merge Expenses — and it documents the user-facing steps and the merged-expense result. None of that changes here.

@linhvovan29546, please confirm this PR introduces no user-facing behavior change. If any part of the merge flow does look different to a user, reply with @MelvinBot and what changed, and I'll draft the help site PR.

---

view run

[lanitochka17]

Deploy Blocker #100351 was identified to be related to this PR.

[OSBotify]

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Valforte in version: 9.4.72-0 🚀

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

[MelvinBot]

🤖 Help site review: no changes required

No updates are needed to App/docs/articles. I did not create a draft PR.

This PR is an internal refactor with no user-facing behavior change:

• src/libs/ReportUtils.ts — JSDoc only: the existing migration note becomes an @deprecated tag on getReportTransactions().
• src/pages/TransactionMerge/DynamicConfirmationPage.tsx — reads the single-expense check from the useReportTransactionsCollection result it already fetches, instead of a bare getReportTransactions call. Same value, different source.
• config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv — grandfathered lint counts for the new no-deprecated rule.
• tests/unit/ReportAlternateTextUtilsTest.ts — test setup only.

Nothing changes in the merge flow a member sees. Your own test plan confirms this: the merge works the same as production, and the multi-expense navigation is unchanged. There is no new or renamed feature, tab, setting, button, or copy string for the help site to document.

I checked the article that covers this flow, How to Merge Duplicate Expenses. Its steps, eligibility rules, and "What happens after you merge duplicate expenses" section all remain accurate as written.

Since no docs change is needed, there is no help site PR to review. If you think a specific article is wrong or missing something here, reply with what it should say and I'll open the draft PR.

@linhvovan29546, please review the linked help site PR and confirm it reflects the current behavior. Then mark the linked help site PR Ready for review

---

view run